Director: Steve James
Cast: Roger Ebert, Chaz Ebert, Werner Herzog, Ava DuVernay
Have I Seen it Before: Yes, indeed. When I started out on these reviews, it came about after a binge of old Siskel & Ebert episodes on youtube, punctuated by a viewing of this film that hit me on a deep, profound level. That was nearly four years ago. Now I’m smack dab in the middle of another binge of S & E episodes, and the film’s been calling my name for rewatch for a while.
Did I Like It: After a number of years on the screening committee for the Santa Fe International Film Festival, I’ve come to some general but essential truths about the levels of quality in the documentary form.
First, a documentary needs to be competent on a technical front. Everything that ought to be seen, ought to be seen clearly. All things which should be heard are heard clearly. It feels like this should be an easy thing to master, but there are so many films which fail. A misunderstanding that the documentary form will be easier and not require the same kind of craft as narrative films has led many down the wrong path. Here, there is nothing to complain about. James brought us Hoop Dreams (1994), which was feverishly championed by Ebert as one of the best documentaries ever produced. This is certainly not—nor was it ever in danger or being—an amateurish effort.
The second threshold which can make or break a documentary is level of access to the subject. Here, there are no complaints, either. Ebert likely knew his time among the lving was not long even when he agreed to the production of the film. He certainly seemed to be at peace with his mortality, if his memoirs were any indication, after a number of years of illness and disfigurement. In stark contrast to the private way his partner, Gene Siskel, handled the public disclosure of cancer and its impact, Ebert let’s us see his life as it is, as unflinchingly as good taste would allow.
Clearing the first and second criteria will allow a film to achieve mere adequacy. Third, and this can be largely up to fate or the whims of the viewer: affinity for (or at least, interest in) the subject. Here, as I indicated above, I am transfixed. If there ever were an example to live life by, I might be most comfortable with that of Ebert’s. A youth can be somewhat misspent, but time will reveal the true valuable things, in increasing order of importance:
Breasts.
Movies*.
The Written Word.
People.
Throw in a complete disinterest in whether or not there’s an afterlife or not, and you actually have the makings of a fine religion brewing there.
* Yes, he gave an ultimately negative review to Gremlins 2: The New Batch (1990), even the greats can be wrong. Another encouraging message.