Saturday, August 2, 2014

Book to Film: Life Itself



Book to Film

Life Itself


          Roger Ebert was the most renowned and famous movie critic to live. He was a man who loved the movies, so it's only natural that he would have a movie made about him - more specifically a movie adapted from a memoir he wrote, Life Itself. The odd thing is it's not a book, or a film about the movies. It's a film and a book about life itself, as the title explains. The original memoir by Ebert is a book about experiences, feelings, and a life lived fully. It doesn't really go into too much detail about movies themselves, and when it does it's not very long portions of the book. Ebert is much more interested in talking about who he is and who he's met and all the things he's done, hasn't done, will never do, and will always do. It explores all aspects of his life, good, bad, or ugly. Its a very honest book, which is a much more rewarding read than one that catalogs favorite movies and things of that sort. 

     Adapting a memoir into a documentary is, as far as I know, a pretty original idea. The film is directed by Steve James. The film was shot during the last months of Ebert's life, coincidentally finishing with his death. The film isn't as much an adaptation of a memoir as it is a look into someone else's life - basically a documentary. If it had actors and a script it could be adaptation, but its not, so it can't truly be called that. This is actually what makes this sort of a fascinating thing to look at. It's looking at he same source from an outside perspective. It's the difference between someone telling you what it was like watching a film and what it was like acting in it. This isn't the kind of book that can get lost in translation because it's not being translated. Your looking at the same thing, once from view of the man in question, the other from those who knew and loved him. 

     In the book Roger talks a lot about different people in his life, from his family, to his work colleagues, to famous directors who made impressions on him. Its describes them through conversations  he's had or experiences. It's nice to see some of those people talk about him in the movie. One thing that doesn't come across as well is more of Roger's life experiences. The movie may say that Ebert liked to take long walks in London, but Roger describes every step of it. He can remember his life with such clarity and it's always fascinating. Other people remembering his life can't quite compare.

      The big difference between the two is the overall theme. The book is about celebrating life, while the movie is about remembering a man's life. The former is more relatable and connects to all of us, while the second is about recognizing greatness and appreciating a great man. The book is also a little clearer, while the documentary is occasionally muddled, yet always heartfelt. In the end it's inevitable that the book is better than the movie. The book is just much more personal. Not that the movie isn't, its just impossible to get the same insight. The detail is not on he same level, and as I said before the difference in perspective is a major factor. It's good to hear everything everyone had to say about Roger, but it's better hearing what he had to say about life. 

      Ebert was an honest man when it came to life. He always said what he really felt about something and that legacy has carried on past his death. If you go on his website you will see that the review for Life Itself is given three and a half stars. Its not a perfect film, and it was given the right scoring. Another website would have given the movie about the creator of the website a four star review. Instead its given the review it should have, the honest one. It's what Ebert would have done. 

The Book: 10/10
The Film: 8/10

3 comments:

  1. What did you think of the absence of Ebert's former Co-hosts in the film? Siskel is given quite a buit of time as well he should but then there is no mention of Richard roeper, Christy Lemire, or Ignatiy Vishnevetsky.

    ReplyDelete
  2. confusing, maybe he didn't much like Roeper

    ReplyDelete