Friday, December 18, 2015

Roger, Me, and Life Itself


I am a movie blogger because of Roger Ebert. That’s a good a way as any to start an article at least tangentially related to Life Itself, a documentary about the life and times of the most famous film critic in the history of the known universe. I don’t mean that I had him at the forefront of my mind the day I found blogger.com and clicked “Create Blog.” I mean he has influenced the way I think about film for over thirty years. He and television partner Gene Siskel are largely responsible for making me cognizant of the fact there are people who not only think critically about movies, but discuss and debate their merits.

I stumbled upon their TV show, Siskel & Ebert At the Movies when I was around twelve years old. I had no idea if what Roger Ebert or Gene Siskel were saying made any sense, but I watched every chance I got because they were talking about movies. They always covered one or more films that I never heard of and/or had no interest in seeing. However, they also talked about the blockbusters I knew I was going to watch. I waited anxiously for them to cover these, which they did almost invariably at the end of each episode. Even if the details of their pontificating remained murky for a few years, their scoring system was crystal clear. Thumbs up was good. Thumbs down was a bad. The two men had different enough tastes that one giving a movie a thumb up while the other went thumb down was the general rule of things. Any film good enough for both of them to like received the coveted “Two Thumbs Up!” These movies usually incorporated that into their marketing campaigns and often saw a spike in ticket sales. “Two Thumbs Down” was a death knell to many a picture which played briefly to empty theaters before vanishing into the cinematic ether. Therefore, something said within Life Itself that sounds like an opinion is absolutely an indisputable fact. Siskel and Ebert became the most powerful film critics of all-time.


Ah yes, Life Itself. I almost forgot you might be here about a movie. It touches on his youth, but really zeroes in on him as a person starting from his time as a journalist on the college newspaper at The University of Chicago. In addition to talking about his journalistic prowess, we also get into his misadventures at local dive bars. We then find out how he became the film critic at The Chicago Sun Times. From there, we move on to his battle with alcoholism, the genesis and continuation of his relationship with his wife Chaz, and the battle with cancer that claimed his life before this film’s completion. Fittingly, a huge chunk of time is devoted to the one thing most responsible for the fame he achieved: Siskel & Ebert At the Movies and the rocky relationship he shared with co-host Gene Siskel.

We learn that Ebert was a bit of a blow-hard and a braggart, quick to remind people who questioned his writing that he was the one who won a Pulitzer Prize. Somehow, he still came across like a nice guy. For those who didn’t know, we also start to understand how vastly knowledgeable he is about film. More important than that, he simply loves it. That love shines through every frame of Life Itself. He fully appreciates film as art and recognizes that even at its most far-fetched it can reveal truths about the human condition. Occasionally, those truths are not pretty. We see how fully he embraces this edict as he voluntarily allows unflattering parts of his cancer treatment to be filmed, sneaking around Chaz to do so. She wants to protect him, and thus wants to keeps private things private. He wants to let the whole world see both the good and bad of what he’s going through.

Speaking of Chaz, she is the other star of the show. The love she and Roger share is evident in every word she speaks. That’s true whether she is acquiescing to his whims, sternly disagreeing with him, or anything in between. We know in our bones that it comes not from a good place, but a perfect place. This isn’t to say she’s perfect. She isn’t. Neither is he. However, they are perfect for each other.


Ebert’s enduring love affair with Chaz, his ups and downs with Gene Sikel, and everything else is presented in an outstanding manner. It never drags and the talking heads don’t bore us. They’re excited to be talking about someone they considered a friend, even if he slammed their films or were rival critics. They deliver heartfelt, often funny anecdotes about Ebert ranging from his influence on film criticism and how he made it accessible to the masses all the way down to some of the skanky women he dragged into those local dives in the days before he met Chaz. All of this serves to make Life Itself poignant, informational, entertaining, tender, and tough all at the same time.

As great as all that is, my favorite portion of Life Itself is about the one thing people have the most trouble reconciling with Roger Ebert’s public persona. It’s the nutty, cult classic, Russ Meyer directed Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. Some have hailed it as a masterpiece of trash cinema. If you love cult movies, this is a must-see. For the uninitiated, Ebert actually wrote the screenplay. Others have simply called it trash. It certainly qualifies for the so-bad-it’s-awesome Hall of Shamelessness. My own personal history with this film goes back almost as far as my awareness of Ebert, himself. I saw it for the first time when I was about fourteen or fifteen years old. By then, I was already years deep into the habit of purposely seeking out movies that contained nudity for late night viewing. It was the craziest thing I’d ever seen, and frankly, I was confused by it all. I loved it, nonetheless. I don’t think I caught it right from the opening credits. Even if I did I paid no attention to them back then, so Ebert’s name would’ve slipped by me undetected. A few months, maybe even a year went by and I completely forgot the title. It became just one of the many bare breast filled craptaculars of which I was fond.

One day at my best friend’s house, Siskel and Ebert somehow became the topic of conversation among the adults. My buddy and I were in the room and got involved as they occasionally let us do. One of the men said that he hated Ebert. When I asked why, his answer jogged my memory, taught me something, and made perfect sense. He said something along the lines of “That guy talks all that junk about how terrible all these movies are, but what does he know? He wrote something called Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. It’s the biggest piece of crap I’ve ever seen.”


“Oh,” I thought. I did not dare say I had seen it, but there was certainly a lot of logic in what this gentleman said. How could a guy so renowned for his cinematic taste have written something so gleefully lurid? It was so out there, it was actually rated 'X' (NC-17 in today's lingo) by the Motion Picture Association of America. After years of developing my own tastes for both blood and Beethoven, i.e. the films that cater to our carnality and those which engage our intellects, I realized that enjoyment of one is not mutually exclusive to the other. They can both be enjoyed on their own terms, by the same person, and even inform and complement each other. I didn’t understand that right then. For years, I still paid attention to Ebert, but tended to dismiss him as something of a hypocrite or disgruntled hack who hated obviously “brilliant” stuff like Rambo II because he himself could only create rubbish. My stance softened as I continued consuming B-movies with voracious enthusiasm, but I still didn’t really appreciate Ebert. He and I co-existed this way for years. He’d get on TV and share his opinions with the world. I made sure I heard them, but usually rolled my eyes. I mean, what did he know, right?

Fast-forward to the late nineties. I was married with children, only watched At the Movies if I so happened to catch it while flipping channels, and finally getting with the times. By that, I mean I bought a computer and started messing around with this strange, new-fangled thing known as the internet. I was still years away from becoming something of a serious cinephile, gobbling up movies big and small with reckless abandon in a futile attempt to see everything. Still, it was normal for me to watch a couple movies every weekend as I had for what seems like my entire life. After finishing some action flick or another that I was underwhelmed by, I was curious what others thought. I slowly pulled up the AOL dial-up connection, because you couldn’t do it quickly, and did a search for the movie’s title plus the word review. One of the first results bore the name Roger Ebert. I clicked the link, expecting to find something at which to scoff. Instead, I found a thoughtful piece that made me expand my own thinking on what I had seen. It probably helped that I agreed with this particular review, but I was intrigued. I started combing the site’s archives which contained just about every review Ebert had ever written for the Chicago Sun-Times. I sought out titles I had seen and read review after review. Sometimes I agreed, sometimes I didn’t, but his arguments were always well-presented, and I was always compelled to read more. The bottom line is that it was simply some damn good writin’.

Before I realized it, hours had passed and I understood Roger Ebert better than I ever had before. Over the weeks, months, and years that followed I read lots more of his reviews and three of his books. I’ve come to understand why he gave movies as many, or as few, stars as he did. Thumbs were reserved for television. I even dipped into the Ebert dictionary. Through all of this, I found he had an appreciation for all sorts of films, including the trash cinema that fueled my insomnia since before puberty. There was no movie he liked or disliked solely on the basis of genre or type. He judged them against others within those genres. Therefore, a B-movie could receive the same number of stars as some film with a lofty artistic vision. When I decided to become a movie blogger I wanted to be as well rounded and open-minded. I wanted to be able to express my love for both Citizen Kane and Zombeavers in the same breath. After all, Ebert knew what I knew. He understood that artsy and technically proficient cinema is great, but schlock balances the scales. Besides, we’re all just beasts of flesh. Occasionally us men, even those as enlightened as Ebert and myself (hopefully), just want to see boobs. This brings me all the way back to the neighbor at my best friend’s house all those years ago, and to a question posed in Life Itself. How could Roger Ebert, of all people, have written Beyond the Valley of the Dolls? I contemplated this as I watched the documentary, thought back on all the things I’ve shared with you here, and settled on my own answer. How could he not?



22 comments:

  1. This is a great doc of someone who is essentially one of the best human beings that walked on the face of the Earth. Most of all, he married a good woman in Chaz who is so full of life as well as being there at his most vulnerable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Man, what he and Chaz had...still have...is beautiful.

      Delete
  2. I liked how the doc showed both his flaws and strengths. Sometimes talking heads in these tribute documentaries just praise famous people on and on, which is tiresome. Life Itself went in an honest direction, which I appreciate.
    Would be interesting to read Ebert's own review of Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, if he could be objective about the flaws in his own screenplay.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know he's written about that movie, but I'm not sure if it's a proper review or just a reflection piece. I am certainly going to read it over the next day or two.

      Delete
  3. "I started combing the site’s archives which contained just about every review Ebert had ever written for the Chicago Sun-Times." Same.

    "I had no idea if what Roger Ebert or Gene Siskel were saying made any sense, but I watched every chance I got because they were talking about movies." Same.

    "I am a movie blogger because of Roger Ebert." Same.

    The biggest shame is that I've still never seen Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. But I want to. I also want to see Meyer's other stuff. Tarantino is apparently remaking Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill! (maybe), so I want to see it as well.

    This is a great piece, man. I stumbled upon Ebert's reviews on the Sun-Times website in 1999. I was a freshmen in high school and fucking obsessed with movies. His work means everything to me. Would love for you to read my review of Life Itself. Well, I guess it's more of a love letter: http://www.speaksinmovielines.blogspot.com/2014/07/more-than-life-itself.html.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks.'98 or'99 is when I found the site. See BtVotD when you're in the mood for something wacky. Same for FPKK. I have actually reviewed that one.

      http://dellonmovies.blogspot.com/2012/06/faster-pussycat-kill-kill.html

      I will most definitely check out your review of Life Itself.

      Delete
  4. Beautiful! Such a rich, personal take on a brilliant doc. Such a shame that this was snubbed the Oscar nom.

    Sometimes, Dell...your writing blows my mind.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Great review! I love that Ebert had that effect on you. He seems to have been a big part of all of the movie blogger community. I actually cried while watching this, which sounds really weird at first, crying during a documentary about a movie critic, but I loved this guy and his relationships both with Chaz and Siskel were so fascinating. It's a shame both Ebert and Siskel are no longer with us. (Though I love that Chaz still has a presence)

    I was a bit surprised that Roeper wasn't in this very much. (Or not at all if my memory serves me) I would think he would've had something to say.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. Ebert has had a huge impact on the movie blogging community. I wonder if he was aware of this. I don't think Roeper appeared at all. Ultimately, it seems that his effect on the Ebert narrative is inconsequential, but I also thought he could've added something.

      Delete
  6. I don't typically plug specific posts on other blogs, but in this case...

    http://1001plus.blogspot.com/2015/09/at-movies.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No worries. I'll read it as soon as I have a chance.

      Delete
  7. I started reading the Ebert's memoir (of the same title) and I really liked it, but didn't have time to finish. I definitely need to see this film.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Wonderful take on this excellent doc. I was a faithful viewer of the original Siskel & Ebert, once Gene Siskel had to drop out shortly before his death it just was never the same and I only watched occasionally. I was so glad that a large chunk of this documentary was given over to that segment of his life. Some parts that dealt with his illness were tough to watch but made the film more well rounded.

    I'm of two minds on Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, the beginning is a hilarious mind trip "This my happening and it's freaking me out!!" fun ride but by the end it had derailed into a stupid bore I thought. Since you mentioned that you love it though here's a link to a recent post by Ken over at "Dreams are What Le Cinema are For" who shares your adoration for the film. His posts are always wonderfully detailed and illustrated and this one is no exception, I think you'll really enjoy it.

    http://lecinemadreams.blogspot.com/2015/12/beyond-valley-of-dolls-1970.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. I didn't watch much after Siskel passed, either. The illness parts were incredibly tough, but very necessary.

      I have no problems with anyone not being able to get into Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. Thanks so much for the link. Love to discover new (to me) blogs. Or, in this case, having someone drop one on you which works just as good.

      Delete
    2. I too love to discover new blogs to check out, this one is one of my favorites. Would love to hear what you think of it once you give it a look.

      Speaking of that I finally saw The Babadook the other day, that was one of your recommends. It was creepy and disturbing, which of course was the point. Can't say I loved it, it's not really my kind of film but I'm glad I watched for the chance to see Essie Davis, who is so self possessed and in control in The Miss Fisher Mysteries, in a different kind of role. She was terrific, the best part of the film for me.

      Delete
    3. Still haven't gotten over to that blog, yet. I'm getting there.

      Glad you watched The Babadook even though it's not your type of film. Essie Davis is amazing in it. Can't praise her performance enough.

      Delete
  9. This was great. I haven't seen the doc yet but plan to because I share your respect for him and his reviews, still re-read them all the time to learn about movies and writing. (and thanks for the mention)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please see the doc. His reviews have taught me lots about movies and writing.

      Delete