Roger Ebert had an envious life; unlike most of us, he got paid to go the movies. For 46 years, Roger Ebert was the film critic for the Chicago Sun Times. He churned out more than ten thousand reviews and even won the Pulitzer Prize for criticism. Life Itself is a befitting homage Ebert’s life. It is directed by Steve James, who also made the famous documentary Hoop Dreams and whose career catapulted because of Ebert’s reviews; this documentary could have turned into hagiography, but somehow even with such vested emotions, steers away from the cliché. The documentary starts with a frail and disfigured Roger struggling to get up in his hospital bed. If you didn’t know, Roger Ebert was diagnosed with throat cancer. His entire lower jaw had to be removed in a life-saving surgery, leaving him with a grotesque looking gaping hole on his face. Many would turn away their eyes reading this description but Roger’s energy and optimism is so pervasive in the film that it draws you in.
Roger was one of those lucky people who knew what they wanted to become very early on in life. Roger chose writing, he started his own newspaper in high school which he delivered himself to his neighbours. At 21, he was the editor of a local Chicago newspaper. He initially wanted to become a sportswriter, and film criticism happened to him by chance. As he said in an interview, the editor of Chicago Sun Times walked over to his desk one day to tell him that the film critic had quit, so you do it from tomorrow. Roger was a combination of talent, hardwork and sheer dedication; he would have had similar success if he had stuck with sports journalism. As a film critic, Roger had his fair share of critics himself. He was accused of oversimplifying film criticism and reducing it to the two thumbs up or two thumbs down culture. The documentary does briefly address this topic but doesn’t dive deeper. Personally I feel Roger democratized film criticism for the public, making it jargon free. He did lose some nuances in this process, but that is always expected when you write for the masses.
The documentary focuses on Robert’s personal and professional life by exploring two relationships; one with his wife, Chaz Ebert, and the other with Gene Siskel, his most famous collaborator and competitor. Roger led a very reckless life in his early years; his alcoholism fueled his late nights at the office. He tied the knot at the ripe age of 50 with Chaz whom he had met at an AA meeting. In the later years, especially after the cancer, Roger could not have worked if he didn’t have Chaz by his side. The movie focuses a lot on Chaz as the caregiver. You have to empathize with her, the daily struggle she puts up with so that Roger can keep writing. Looking at Chaz and Roger I feel, if this is not love then God knows what is. His relationship with Gene Siskel transformed his professional life. Gene Siskel worked for Chicago Tribune, an elite newspaper a few blocks away from Chicago Sun Times office. Gene and Roger shared different values and pasts but were united in their love for movies. When a producer approached them to do a show on prime time reviewing movies, both of them realized it was an offer they could not refuse. Gene and Roger were always at loggerheads, from bickering openly on the sets to showing passive-aggressive anger on live shows. The documentary brilliant explores this tense relationship using archival footage and anecdotal interviews. But whatever be the case, Gene’s presence pushed Roger intellectually, and when Gene died in 1999, Roger was left distraught. They tried to replace Gene, but the show never reached its previous peaks.
The documentary is particularly impressive because even without adopting a linear narrative, the film keeps you engaged. Even someone who is not a movie buff and has not heard of Roger Ebert will not be bored. Roger died five months into filming; the final edit could have been different had he been there. As Ebert said, the purpose of movies is to make us empathize and Life Itself sure does the job. It draws us in and asks us to empathize with the person, both his good and bad. And ultimately, it asks us to share Ebert’s passion for the movies, and observe how it changes us. If Ebert were alive, he would have given this film two thumbs up.

You can watch the trailer here.