MovieChat Forums > Life Itself (2014) Discussion > WAY too much focus on his last few years

WAY too much focus on his last few years

posted 11 years ago by M_Exchange
16 replies | jump to latest

He even implores the filmmaker (paraphrasing), "show all of this. It's not just your film." He senses that his appearance/condition is just not something that he needed to show constantly or that we wanted to see constantly.
Yet...
And don't misunderstand me: if people who saw this film in a similarly grotesque condition gained encouragement, outstanding. Also, it would be insulting to Ebert and his family if they minimized how he was during his last days.
But it was beyond the proper amount of time that it warranted-- well beyond. When they discussed how Siskel dealt with his cancer privately I actually found myself gaining much more respect for him.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] M_Exchange 11 years ago

I walked out immediately after he reacted to Siskel's death. At around that exact time (in the movie, at least) he revealed that he had cancer himself. I didn't need to see anymore of that narrative to know how it played out because it had already been tapped ad nauseum. As one reviewer put it, a lot of it depends on how you want to remember someone. If you want to remember him in that state, more power to you. I want to remember him as an outspoken and virile critic. 45 minutes in a 2 hour movie is far too much, but it's what he wanted-- I sense that he really loved "reality TV." I don't, and I never will.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Gus-69 11 years ago

What a waste of time this thread is. You are a moron. Whining about a movie you didn't even sit all the way through. Whatever point you thought you had was lost after your second post above.

Grow up.

----------------------
http://mulhollandcinelog.wordpress.com/

[–] M_Exchange 11 years ago

"You are a moron."

Well, sir, I've always believed in the validity of such statements from someone who has read two paragraphs from a random stranger.
Also, genius, "Whining about a movie you didn't even sit all the way through" is not a sentence.
Thanks for playing.

[–] DPatts 11 years ago

I don't think they spent too much time on his last years. Yes there was a lot of footage from him in his last year but most of that was due to the fact that this was when the film was being made. There was time focused on his illness but I think they explained how traumatic Gene Siskel's passing was for him partially because he didn't know he was ill and he didn't want the same thing for himself and those who knew him.

I think the last 25 minutes of the film which focuses on the last 6 years of his life was well done and really brought out the indomitable spirit and stubbornness he had about him that kept him going. If you had never read his blog in his final years, you missed out on a lot. He wrote about his alcoholism and recovery, his catholic faith in early years and his loss of it, and many other things that I can say really connected to people.

If you walked out just halfway into the film, you missed so much. More of his rivalry/relationship and ultimately brotherly relationship he developed with Gene Siskel and how marrying Chaz really changed him, gave him a greater purpose, and a family he really hadn't had for years.

I didn't really see anything unwatchable about his illness. Other than the draining the nurses did, his jaw removal had been seen by millions already.

[–] M_Exchange 11 years ago

I realized yesterday that even if a documentary that was supposed to explore the fullness of someone's life spent 45+ minutes on the last few years of a man who knew he was going to die soon yet he was mobile, could talk coherently, etc. I would maintain that too much time was devoted to his last few years (if such a man had been in the public eye for DECADES, at least).
The fact that Ebert was so disfigured, unable to talk regularly, etc. just made it that much more painful.
So it's just a matter of preference.

[–] DPatts 11 years ago

Except they didn't spend 45 minutes on that time, I don't even know where that number comes from, I would say it was more like 25, and in that 25 minutes, they spent time focusing on not only his illness, but his relationship with his wife, her family, the surgery that caused his loss of the ability to speak and eat, the development of his blog to give him a new voice(and in many ways better one), the email questions and answers between Steve James and Ebert, and the development and enhancement of his website. The rest of the film only includes him in his current state, not to focus on his illness, but as segue or transition between the different aspects of his life. I think the film probably could have cut out about 10 minutes of the last segment, but that's really the only flaw IMO.

[–] HellBellsLiveWired 11 years ago

I would have preffered a more comprehensive look at his career with more archival footage, especially from the Siskel and Ebert reviews, because there's so much gold there.

A day without a buzz is a day that never was.

[–] DPatts 11 years ago

I thought they did a pretty good job with Ebert's career in this film, particularly his relationship and time with Siskel.

The film is based on his memoir Life Itself, so the material that is focused on is what was covered in his book. Perhaps someone will make a film or write a book specifically covering the relationship between Siskel and Ebert someday who knows.

[–] ecarle 11 years ago

Though both men ended up the richest film critics in history(thanks to TV syndication dollars -- the gold mine of Hollywood), I find it a bit haunting how death floated over the "Siskel and Ebert" team as a dark marker. And maybe, a cautionary tale.

It started back in 1999 (how long ago that "futuristic" year seems now) when the news slowly broke that Siskel had brain cancer and was needing some surgeries.

Suddenly, these two "bickering critics" found themselves in a life-or-death relationship. Siskel did a coupla of shows as "audio only" from his hospital bed, and then came back on the live show clearly in a depleted physical state.

It was touching to watch Roger Ebert - usually on the attack against Siskel -- literally having to "hold his punches" and argue GENTLY with Siskel, who tried to argue back but was clearly too exhausted to do so. "The Siskel and Ebert act" was poignantly overtaken by death.

And then Siskel died(at a young 53) and his ghost rather hovered over all those later attempts by Ebert to rekindle the feeling with a parade of substitute critic co-hosts, and the final, just OK choice of Roeper.

Time flies. It took over a decade, but suddenly...Ebert was sick, too. Cancer, too. Of a different kind and of a much different duration. Siskel was gone in a year, Ebert did a long slow goodbye, only occasionally "letting us in" to see just how bad the cancer had ravaged him. His face. His eating. His drinking. His voice. And in the final years, he let us in all the way, to see it all(even as his mind stayed clear and he expressed himself as I am now, typing.)

Its funny how "Siskel and Ebert," begun in our culture as a bickering TV couple for our entertainment...eventually became two sad and poignant symbols of how suddenly sickness can change everything and how death must come to us all...leaving our loved ones to mourn us.

The cautionary tale: I"ve always wondered if the sedentary, in-the-dark lifestyles of Siskel and Ebert at all contributed to their illnesses. Probably not, but it seems the message is: don't spend your life in the dark.

[–] M_Exchange 11 years ago

I would have preffered a more comprehensive look at his career with more archival footage, especially from the Siskel and Ebert reviews, because there's so much gold there.

^ This. This precisely.

[–] stevenackerman69 11 years ago

Well, I think his last years were the bravest. Remember, he lost his ability to speak and eat and drink, which would hurt anybody, yet he decided to go on with his life and job. It is like when Christopher Reeve became paralyzed. Chris could've just ended his life but he chose to fight and hopefully regain movements in his body. Before he died, he did recover some of it, and was an inspiration to others in the same situation. Think about what Roger went through for 2 years after 2006 and you can see it wasn't pretty for him. He missed a lot of films, could never return to his balcony seat, yet he decided to carry on. Let's see you do that.

[–] M_Exchange 11 years ago

At what point does "life itself" become The Precious in Lord of the Rings, and at what point do men realize that they're resembling Gollum?

[–] haynese_98 11 years ago

The cautionary tale: I"ve always wondered if the sedentary, in-the-dark lifestyles of Siskel and Ebert at all contributed to their illnesses. Probably not, but it seems the message is: don't spend your life in the dark.

I wonder the same thing. Not to be overly fatalistic but when someone dies I try to look at their lifestyle and sometimes can come to the conclusion--whether I'm right or not--of what killed them.

In the case of Siskel and Ebert it's a little cloudy: Ebert was treated with radiation for the simplest of aches(earache) as a child, it does look very possible it had a direct cause in his death. Siskel seemed to have a more stressful lifestyle; he was easily excited, he took on too many tasks, he may have had a bad diet. He always seemed to be disheveled and running late. You'd see Siskel in a diner with his hair unkempt and his collar flapping as he hurriedly devoured his greasy breakfast. And maybe he smoked earlier in(or throughout)his life.

I definitely could be on the wrong track. Still, I do think there's a cautionary tale to be found here. If we don't adopt a healthy lifestyle it almost certainly will catch up with us much sooner than expected.

"There is no Hollywood any more, there's just a bunch of banks"

[–] harpolini 11 years ago

I agree. I can't fully recommend Life Itself for that exact reason.

As many users pointed out, it covers other topics in his life starting from his childhood, but those scenes feel "sprinkled it." The work as a whole is a bit of a jumbled mess, with the bulk being Roger's later years.

I had high hopes when I saw Steve James was attached to this, but I think the major fault of this film was not the director's, but the fact that they need to push his film out ASAP to be timely as possible. What I love about Jame's works, which Ebert himself would testify is that the filmmaker needs time to unfold his story (Hoop Dreams, Stevie). Unfortunately James came during his last year. Life Itself comes across more like a rushed TV special than documentary. I big tipoff, was when I started seeing footage pulled from youtube instead of tracking down the source material.

I felt a more focused chronological approach would have helped. It just felt like they were going back to the hospital room to fill space. It felt 1/3 Ebert history, 1/3 hospital and 1/3 Chaz interview about his hospital visits.

I would love to see another documentary, but it really is unnecessary. We got to know the man across 46 years of writing. Life Itself is a wonderful book.