By Chuck Williamson
Steve James is the award-winning director and producer of â€˜Hoop Dreamsâ€™, â€˜Stevieâ€™ and â€˜The Interruptersâ€™. Jamesâ€™ new film, a feature-length documentary based on Roger Ebert’s bestselling memoir â€˜Life Itselfâ€™, is already being hailed as a profoundly moving tribute to the most beloved film critic of his generation, recounting his life, legacy and final days.
Throughout Life Itself, it seemed as if Roger Ebertâ€™s unexpected passing dramatically reshaped the filmâ€™s narrative structure. It eventually splits its time between adapting Ebertâ€™s memoirs and documenting the final days of his life. In what ways did Ebertâ€™s waning health and eventual death determine the shape of the film?
His death was, needless to say, a development that couldnâ€™t help but shape the film. It meant, at the beginning, I wanted to let the audience know that, before the end of this film, Roger would be gone. That this wasnâ€™t a film that was made and completed before his death, that that was part of the story we were going to tell. Of course, I think that by alerting the audience to that â€” and of course, most people who would go to this movie know that Roger passed away, if not all of them â€” it does kind of hover over the film. Even the funny moments in the present of him in the hospital. I think â€” I hope â€” that people take great pleasure and joy from seeing the way Roger is handling those last months, but in the backdrop there’s this knowledge and understanding we are heading inevitably towards the end. I think that made a difference. Not to be callous about it, but it lent a narrative quality to those scenes that, when I started out, I had no intention of capturing. I was going to capture his day-to-day life simply to show how vibrant and alive and active he remained, despite all heâ€™d been through. I think you see all of those qualities, but you also know that heâ€™s going to die.
It also then changed the way in which I dealt with things like the emails with him, because the emailing during the course of the time when he was alive was purely a practical production thing for me, in order to plan for an actual sit-down interview. Practically speaking, Roger understandably has people send him questions so that he can type out answers in his own time, and then you get together with him and you film, and then he plays back the answers and you can ask follow-ups on the spot. So this started out to be just a practical thing: I would compose questions, send them to him periodically, he would bank his answers, and then we were going to get together and do, over the course of several days probably, a major sit-down interview. Of course, that didnâ€™t happen. So some of those questions that he answered as we went along and that whole process of communicating with him that way loomed much larger and more important in the wake of his death, especially the email exchanges down toward the end.
What was your approach to adapting Ebertâ€™s memoirs? What editorial choices did you have to make when sculpting his life into a coherent narrative?[laughs] Well, itâ€™s not easy, because if youâ€™ve read the memoir it is largely chronological, but not exclusively so. Itâ€™s also episodic or character-driven, meaning youâ€™ll have chapters devoted to Martin Scorsese or Werner Herzog or Bill Nack and John McHugh, who are all in the movie. I wanted to mimic the structure of the memoir because I found it so beautifully put-together: the way in which he bounces from the present and the past and the way in which the memoir is clearly told from the vantage point of someone thatâ€™s in Rogerâ€™s present condition looking back over his life. I thought that was quite poetic. In many respects, this film duplicates that approach and, of course, uses his own words throughout to narrate the film, just as he narrates his own life in his memoir. These were all things I â€œborrowedâ€ from the memoir, or were inspired by the memoir, even down to the subjects that I made sure to interview.
Of course, we deviate from the memoir in other ways, particularly in diving so deeply into the Siskel and Ebert show [At the Movies] and his relationship with Gene, which isnâ€™t really dealt with in that degree of detail in the memoir.
Watching the film, I noticed that Ebertâ€™s decades-long working relationship with Russ Meyer takes up very little real estate within the film. Was there an active effort to deemphasise this creative partnership? Was there a fear that it might pull focus away from his collaboration with Siskel?
I didnâ€™t want to deemphasise it, but thereâ€™s just so many things to try to get into the movie. I love that part of it and frankly could have easily spent more time on it, but itâ€™s a balancing act with a movie like this because he did so many different things. He had so many different chapters to his life and things that were important to him that I wanted to include, like Cannes and the Conference for World Affairs, which was a part of his life that was very, very important that few people know anything about. He went to this conference for 40 years and it was a big part of his intellectual experience. Itâ€™s also where he evolved this whole Cinema Interruptus frame analysis thing, which I found fascinating. Thereâ€™s just so many things! I did not absolutely want to leave out Beyond the Valley of the Dolls at all â€” [laughs] â€” but I wasnâ€™t able to dig deeply into his relationship with Russ. I just didnâ€™t feel like I had the time to do it justice.
[laughs] And that could easily be a movie by itself.
In fact, there is someone in Hollywood [screenwriter Christopher Cluess] trying to make a film about Russ and Roger. So there you go. I donâ€™t know if itâ€™ll ever happen, but theyâ€™re trying.