The three-hour film about inner-city Chicago basketball players drew the attention of noted movie critics Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert, and its lack of nomination for an Oscar that year caused it to gain considerable notoriety and loud support from the famed critic pair.
Decades on, James was tasked with bringing Roger Ebert's memoir, "Life Itself," to the screen. When the subject died suddenly midway through filming, the work became a kind of elegy to the writer and critic known throughout the world for his wit and love of film.
The resulting work is one sure to be well-considered at awards time, a touching and moving film that still spares no punches, telling a wonderfully rounded picture of the man and his role in the history of cinema. Moviefone Canada spoke with James a day after the tear-filled premiere at the Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah.
Moviefone Canada: How does it feel to present this to the public for the first time?
Steve James: My God, I feel great. You know, filmmakers come to [Sundance] and I try, like a lot of filmmakers, to keep my expectations down, to not get too carried away with what you want to have happen. Of course you have high hopes! I can't think of a screening that was like that, in my experience, in terms of the feeling in the room. I've never choked up introducing a film like that. I was shocked it happened.
Ebert would have been the first to criticize any mere hagiography -- there has to be a balance between telling a narrative in your documentary and eulogizing your friend.
I hope I found that balance for people. I so appreciated Chaz [Ebert's wife] and Roger saying to them "Please be candid, please cooperate," because many of these people were so loyal, they would not have interviewed with me without [their] blessing.
I remember when I interviewed Rick and Bruce, two of his buddies from back in the drinking days in the same bar where they would often end up. Bruce was listening to Rick's interview, which was fantastic, and I thought very candid, and when it was over, Rick said, "How'd I do?" and Bruce said, "Oh, you weren't honest enough!"
And this is where we get the lines about prostitution...
Yeah, and all the women he hated back in the day were gold diggers, psychos, that [Roger] was a nice guy, [but] wasn't always that nice. It was absolutely important to me and my team that we hung on to those things. We talked about it, that when we started cutting the movie down, we can't lose those moments.
[Ebert] did change -- he grew up, and it took him a while. He was a lovable guy and people loved him from the earliest times, but he was also a know-it-all and a guy that thought he knew best. [The bar] was his colloquy. You find a genuine humility and softness at the end and through the illness, so if you're going to take people there on that arc, then you'd better do justice to that other part.
If I had to nitpick, there's one thing that I think that the film might not delve into as much as I would have liked: the power of that writing.
I hear your nitpick -- I could have happily put 12 films in there and featured the writing in 12 different films. I did four. Here's how I rationalize it: the film is full of his writing, [as] his memoir narrates the story. To me, all of that is Roger's writing.
One of the more effective and moving parts of the film are the questions left unanswered, as his voice was silenced. Was there one particular question that you most wanted answered that he didn't have a chance to respond to?
I got through two pages in the course of the film out of 99 pages of questions. The last one I asked was about the [Richard] Corliss debate. I wanted to hear him reflect back on that.
I have his rebuttals on that, they're in the movie, but the debate over criticism. What I really wanted to ask him about was Richard was a friend and then published this thing, and they remained friends. How did that happen?
The last question I did actually ask him is the one that haunts me the most. I think I know the answer as to why he called it "Life Itself," but I didn't learn the answer until now.
What does the title mean to you?
To me, that this was a guy whose fame and importance to us is what he brought to film and filmmaking and film lovers everywhere, the art of criticism, but it was life itself that makes him a remarkable man. That's what it means to me.
"Life Itself" is now playing in select theatres.
Check out our interview with Chaz Ebert, Roger Ebert's widow.
from The Moviefone Blog http://ift.tt/1wrW1K2
via IFTTT
No comments:
Post a Comment