Life Itself

I usually don’t review documentaries.  I’m not sure why, but they usually don’t inspire me to want to share my thoughts on them.  ‘Life Itself” moved me so much that I felt compelled to talk about it.  Roger Ebert was arguably (or really, unarguably) the preeminent American film critic.  His reviews were full, rich, and academic, yet at the same time accessible to the masses.  Roger and his fellow film critic Gene Siskel held court weekly in the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s on their their syndicated show.  In Emperor like fashion, their ‘thumbs up, thumbs down’ became almost more coveted than the Oscar and a movie’s fortunes could rise or fall based on their reviews. ‘Life Itself’ showcases the life of this unremarkably remarkable man.  It’s a cliché ‘wart’s and all’ style of documentary that gives us an insight into a man whose love of movies was exceeded only by the woman and family he found later in life and the city of Chicago of which he was indelibly a part.

Most people know that Roger Ebert at the end of his life had a long battle with cancer that severely disfigured him to the point of needing a computer to communicate.  We were all startled by his transformation as he progressively began to lose his battle.  What was remarkable was his determination not to curl up and hide, rather to continue to live life the best he was able and to maintain not only his high spirits, but the spirits of the people he loved as well.  The camera is unflinching (at Roger’s request), no matter how undignified, yet even though we wince we are uplifted by the power of his spirit.

This is not a depressing cancer movie.  This is a deep exploration of Roger’s life and the events and paths that lead him to become the critic to which even the likes of Martin Scorcese bowed.  A man of contradictions, who could win Pulitzer prizes and write reviews that even academics were jealous of, yet write a screenplay for Roger Coreman called ‘Beyond the Valley of the Dolls’.  To call this a B-movie would be over complimentary, but to hear Roger defend it was a highlight of the film.

As an adopted Chicagoan, I loved the parts that focused on his love for the city.  Exploring places I frequently haunt and showing areas I never knew existed. In the height of his fame and power, he was offered positions and jobs that paid much more and offered greater prestige, but he turned them all down as he never wanted to leave this great city.  Chicago was part of who he was.  He hit his meteoric highs in this city as well as hitting rock bottom.  It was part of who he was.

The most moving part of the film was exploring the two great loves in his life: Gene Siskel and his wife, Chaz Ebert.  Regarding Gene; they became famous for their on-air bickering and acerbic interactions while reviewing movies.  We see behind the scene footage that shows that the constant irritation and bickering was genuine.  It was a true Love/Hate relationship as they did not get along off camera either, but it becomes plain to see that each respected each other’s intellect immeasurably.  One of the more moving scenes was the fact that Gene hid his own cancer from Roger until it was too late.  Not only was Roger devastated with the passing of Gene, but he was even more devastated that Gene chose to keep something so personal hidden from Roger.  It wasn’t until Gene’s death that Roger realized how much he loved Gene and how much a part of his life he was.

The great love of Roger’s life, he met at age 50.  Chaz Ebert is a strong, independent (self-proclaimed militant in her younger days) African-american woman who fell in love with probably the whitest of white men on the planet.  Despite Roger’s nerdy appearance, he was a playboy most of his life, but when he met Chaz, she fundamentally him for the better.  Not only Chaz, but also her immediate family accepted Roger as one of their own.  He described it as receiving love unconditionally and conversely giving them love unconditionally.  Chaz wells up as she remembers Roger telling her that he waited 50 years to find the woman he loved.  Chaz kept largely out of the spotlight during Roger’s life, but she was definitely the emotional core and strength of the two.  She saw Roger at his worst, yet she never wavered from his side.  In fact, she held on to Roger’s life past the point Roger was ready to go.  It would take a hard heart not to be moved when Chaz recounts how Roger asked her to let him go because he was ready to move on. 

Overall, I viewed this movie as a love story rather than a cancer movie.  Not just a story of his love affair with Chaz, but his love of ‘Life Itself’.  His passion for those around him, the city he loved, and of course movies. I love movies too, but I don’t come close to the passion that Roger had for the art form.  He loved every word of dialogue and every picture frame put forth. Oddly enough, I rarely agreed with Roger’s opinions (except that he loved super hero movies too), but he was always the first review I read when I wanted to find out about a film.  Even though this documentary can be hard to watch, I found it to be incredibly uplifting and life affirming.  I highly recommend this film even if you aren’t a film fanatic.  A great insight into an unremarkably remarkable man.

I give this film **** stars

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi856010009/

Boyhood

       As moviegoers, i don’t think we always appreciate the amount of labor and commitment that goes into creating something that gives us 2 hours of entertainment.  People dedicate years of their lives and companies dedicate their fortunes, just to plant us in a seat for 2 hours and hopefully enjoy ourselves.  Is it any wonder that movies tend to shoot big to reel in the big dollars?  If you read critics reviews, they almost unanimously  are giving ‘Boyhood’ perfect 100 scores on IMDB.  I am not going to jump on that bandwagon, but I am speechless and in awe at the level of artistry and commitment that it took to assemble this film.

Director Richard Linklater has given us a film that has taken him 12 years to assemble.  It follows the life of Mason (Ellar Coltrane)  growing up with his family in Texas over the course of his adolescence.  What is so amazing is that Richard Linklater was able to keep the same actors on this project over the course of 12 years and you actually see Mason grow up on screen before our very eyes.  He starts out as an 8 year boy and we follow him through adolescence to young adulthood.  Anyone familiar with Richard Linklater knows he has done similar things with the ‘Before’ trilogy where he reassembles the same actors every 10 years for an update to their character’s story.  As ‘Boyhood’ progresses one gasps the same way one gasps after seeing a child relative after they have growth spurts.  To see these child actors grow up in front of our very eyes over a 2 hour period leaves one incredulous.

What I found interesting about the movie is the same thing that I felt detracted from it.  The movie isn’t about anything in particular.  It is dialogue based and basically is a series of vignettes of Mason’s life growing up in Texas.  The glimpses aren’t even milestones in Mason’s life, merely peeks as his life progresses.  As the random events are shown, one begins to see the tapestry of his life that culminates into the young man he becomes, but at it’s core, it’s very existential in its’ portrayal of his life and lessons.  

Patricia Arquette plays Mason’s single mother who is struggling to make ends meet.  She had children way to early with the roguish, yet lovable father (Ethan Hawke, another Linklater favorite).  Mason’s sister Samantha (played by Lorelei Linklater) has even more startling transformations as she matures into a young woman.  The family dynamic works despite the mother bringing a string of abusive father figures into her life and Mason’s continual teenage disaffections.  Ethan Hawke is a constant in the kids life despite his absenteeism (I know that sounds weird, but its true).  Over the course of 12 years, we see Ethan slowly begin to get his life together and make something of himself.  Even when he starts his new family, his kids are always forefront in his heart.  His attempt to talk about the birds and the bees with his daughter was one of the highlights of the film with one of the most palpably awkward and humorous scenes I’ve seen in awhile.

Again, the fascination of this film is seeing Mason develop into the man he becomes through his formative years.  The movie has no real direction of life lessons, merely a voyeuristic look into the lives of a family that could be anyone in America.  There are highs and lows, but I don’t think the film strives to be anything more than a character study.  It’s the scope and breadth of this film that is remarkable and the awareness that it took over 12 years to make.  It says something about the director that he was able to keep the same cast of actors dedicated throughout.  Like all Linklater films, dialogue is at the forefront, so for those who don’t enjoy the art of conversation and observation, the 2.5 hour running time could seem tedious.  Most, I believe, will be too awe struck by the actors growing up in front of us to actually miss any type of linear story or action.

A warning: this is a rated ‘R’ movie with graphic language and mature story lines.  I saw a lot of families with little children attending this and the parents squirmed uncomfortably during some of the dialogue.  The movie poster makes it look like a kiddie film, but it is definitely labeled ‘R’.  Not to be too snobbish, but that is why they give films ratings, so parents will know what’s appropriate for kids and what isn’t.  I was wondering what the parents were thinking when they brought their little 8 year olds to see this.

Overall, if you are an avid movie goer, I recommend this film for it’s artistic achievement.   If you are more of a casual goer, this might be a little long and short on excitement.

I give this film ***1/2 stars (mainly for the fact it was made)

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1306504217/

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

‘Dawn of the Planet of the Apes’ is the sequel to the vastly under-appreciated rebooted ‘Rise of the Planet of the Apes’ from 2011 starring James Franco.  The sequel was released in August, which rarely does well comparatively, but it did well enough to merit a sequel.  Respect must have grown as ‘Dawn of the Planet of the Apes’ is poised to dominate the box office this weekend.  For those who think this is your father’s Planet of the Apes or even the inadequate Tim Burton reboot from 2001, think again.  Technology is at a point where this story can be told with almost complete suspension of disbelief.  You feel these are apes and not just men in rubber masks.  This incarnation is a much more fleshed out and ‘human’ version of the story with stories of nobility and conflict resonating much more true to the human experience than the previous films.

Spoiler Alert:  For those who remember from the last film, the life of  Caesar, the first genetically enhanced ape, and his relationship with his human family was the focus.  The film ultimately led to Caesar championing the release and escape of the captive ape population as an aggressive super virus began to wipe out the human population. ‘Rise of the Planet of the Apes’ opens ten years later in San Francisco where the surviving humans have formed protective colonies and the apes have begun to build their village in the woods.  They live comfortably apart until one day a human stumbles across some wandering apes and shoots one of them in a panic.  Fear, hysteria, and distrust on both sides mount until Caesar takes it upon himself to lead his apes to the walled off city of San Francisco in a show of force and demand the humans stay out of the forest.  The challenge is, the human survivors are almost out of power and fuel and an abandoned dam in the Apes territory is their only hope for power and survival.

The city’s leader, Dreyfuss (my favorite, Gary Oldman) in panic and desperation, starts talk of war with the apes. However, resident enlightened peace-nick Malcom (Jason Clarke) decides to lead a group, despite Caesar’s warning, to the ape village and ask the ape’s permission to see if they can restart the dam and avoid war.  Malcom’s wife (Kerri Russell) and son (Kodi Smit-McPhee) join along with a few technicians and they put themselves at the mercy of the apes in order to show their good intentions towards peace.  Having grown up among humans, Caeser is inclined to work with them despite the warnings from his advisors.  It’s not that Caeser wants humans around, but he knows the consequences of war and will do all he can to avoid it.  Despite some missteps on both sides, the plan seems to work and we begin to hope that humans and apes can work together.

Unfortunately, both sides let fear and paranoia lead to actions that make it impossible keep the peace and when one of Ceasar’s most trusted advisors betrays him, war becomes inevitable.  I think that is where this movie varies from the original series and smartly so.  A film must resonate with the times to be relevant.  The original series was a metaphor for the civil rights movement and a cautionary tale of what happens when you treat others as less than yourself.  This modern reboot is more of a cautionary tale about fear and paranoia causing us to go to war instead of working towards resolution.  Both sides have the best of intentions, but it takes just a few events by a few individuals to stoke the drums of war.  Whether fear and mistrust leading to war is something we can learn to avoid or is inevitable in the human condition is something for the viewer to decide.

The special effects are so good that we forget we are watching special effects.  At it’s heart, the story drives this film, but the special effects allows us to put aside our disbelief.  This is a tale of survival and the human spirit at it’s most basic level.  When all the trappings of civilization are torn away and we revert to our tribal natures, the question arises as to who will become the dominant species on the planet.  We already know the answer to that, but it’s still a great ride and great story.  If you haven’t seen the re-booted ‘Rise of the Planet of the Apes’ out of bias or contempt due to the original series, I encourage you to set that aside and take a chance.  Watch the reboot and if you see what I mean, then rush out and see this superb sequel.  I have high respect for this film and the previous reboot and thoroughly enjoyed this reimagining of a classic tale.

I give this film *** stars

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi3448876057/