CHICAGO– The iconic film critic and renaissance man, Roger Ebert, deservedly gets a full documentary film treatment of his 2011 memoir, “Life Itself,” and who better to create it than the Chicago-based director of “Hoop Dreams,” Steve James. And who better to produce and guide it than Roger’s soulmate, his wife Chaz Ebert.
Steve James has been a conscientious filmmaker ever since his career began, and after the amazing reception for “Hoop Dreams” (1994), he has made many other notable documentaries including “Stevie” (2002), “At the Death House Door” (2008), The Interrupters” (2011) and “Head Games” (2012). James got the assignment for “Life Itself” personally from Roger and Chaz Ebert, working with Roger on the project right up to the film critic’s death.
Roger Ebert in his Element for the Documentary ‘Life Itself’
Photo credit: Magnolia Pictures
Chaz Hammelsmith Ebert met Roger in 1989, and they were married three years later. She was by his side during his diagnosis of cancer in 2002, and the disease ultimately took away his ability to speak or eat. Chaz’s encouragement kept Ebert going, as he adopted new technology to provide voice through a computerized system, and wrote as much on the internet as he did for his home paper, the Chicago Sun-Times. Chaz was also by his side as he lost his battle with the disease on April 4th, 2013.
HollywoodChicago.com was honored to get the opportunity to talk to both Chaz Ebert and director Steve James, just days before the release – naturally on July 4th – of the film version of Roger Ebert’s aptly titled memoir, “Life Itself.”
HollywoodChicago.com: Chaz, in the film you hinted about your activist past. Since you came of age during some very decisive moments in American civil rights history, how did that turmoil affect you during your younger years, and how does it still affect your worldview in the sense of your emotions toward hope and justice today?
Chaz Ebert: I was an activist, inspired by my mother, who was a precinct captain in our neighborhood in Chicago. I used to go around with her, knocking on doors to get people out to vote.
My father was more reserved. To me, he seemed really scarred by what had happened to him growing up in the South, in Georgia, and by nature he was a reserved man. It was only when Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. marched in Chicago [in 1966], that my father, for the first time, opened up about growing up in the segregated South, and the discrimination he had to suffer. He and I went out, and together we marched with Dr. King, and that was pivotal to me, in the sense of how deeply felt the fight for civil rights was, not just to a whole race of people, but my father, mother and I individually.
HollywoodChicago.com: How did Roger support you in that revelation?
Ebert: When I talk about Roger being ‘his brother’s keeper,’ I believed in that too. That’s the way I grew up. The fact that Roger and I were together, and found each other, meant our passions for social justice and civil rights mingled together. That was also pivotal to my own life, because I fought as an African-American woman, fighting for rights for African Americans or other minorities. But when Roger and I came together, there was new feeling of hope, because we both were very optimistic about it.
Steve James: If I can just add this. I’ve done a number of films that deal with race and racial issues. It was amazing to hear Chaz talk about that in regard to the two of them. Their relationship – a white guy from central Illinois and a black woman from Chicago – is one of the most hopeful things I’ve ever witnessed, as it relates to race in this country. They had all the awareness and participation on these issues as two people could have in a relationship, but personally it didn’t matter. It came down simply to their togetherness, a pure marriage of two people.
HollywoodChicago.com: So Steve, you had Roger’s memoir, you had other sources to study his life. At what point during the filmmaking process did you come up with the point of view you chose to use in the film?
James: I hate to keep giving Roger so much credit, that’s the problem with this. [laughs] Yes, there are outside perspectives on Roger, and they’re important perspectives because they reinforce what we learned from his book ‘Life Itself,’ and they offer other viewpoints, which the memoir can’t do.
What I love about the memoir is what I hope people will love about the movie, which is a man looking back on his life – through the prism of this extraordinary life experience he has had – and also through the way his life changed so dramatically, when he lost the ability to speak and eat, and other losses having to do with his later health issues. Yet he’s looking back over this remarkable journey of his life. That’s the film I tried to make, and that is what the memoir is – it’s all ultimately from Roger.
HollywoodChicago.com: Chaz, before you met Roger, what was your relationship with the movies? And what revelations, after your courtship and marriage, did Roger provide that opened your eyes to the love and sensibility of the world of film?
Ebert: I was always a cinephile, I loved movies even before I met Roger. One of the reasons I think he was impressed with my knowledge when we met was because I always liked all kinds of films - independents, foreign films, the mainstream, all styles of cinema. But of course being with someone like him, I continued my study of film. What he emphasized had me honing into a director’s whole body of work, rather than specific films.
Another thing he taught me to appreciate was focusing on slower moving films. Roger would always point out that in some cases, it was good to let a movie breathe, to allow the elements in it to unfold. Not all films needed to be breezy and snappy, which is what I preferred. He taught me why that was important. I also enjoyed watching his shot-by-shot analysis of movies that he loved.
James: He never had to explain to you about my films moving too slowly, did he? [laughs]
Ebert: You mean ‘Hoop Dreams’ being three hours? Come on! [laughs]
Chaz Ebert on the Red Carpet at the Chicago Premiere of ‘Life Itself’ on June 30th, 2014
Photo credit: Joe Arce of Starstruck Foto for HollywoodChicago.com
Director Steve James on the Red Carpet at the Chicago Premiere of ‘Life Itself’ on June 30th, 2014
Photo credit: Joe Arce of Starstruck Foto for HollywoodChicago.com
HollywoodChicago.com: Steve, what was behind the decision to hire a voice actor to recreate Roger’s ‘voice’ so effectively, and how do you feel it enhances the journey in the film?
James: When we were editing, we were using the Edward Herrmann narration from the ‘Life Itself’ CD recording. I knew when I was reading the memoir that I wanted Roger to narrate the film, in essence from excepts in the book. So we were using the Herrmann narration in editing, for the timing as much as anything else.
Ebert: Roger had picked Edward Herrmann personally because he liked his vocal style.
James: As I was listening to it in that process, I wasn’t sure I wanted that particular voice, but I wasn’t sure what I wanted. While we were working on the editing, I would have various screenings for people at Kartemquin Films, to get feedback on what was working or not. Two things became clear. no matter how great Edward Herrmann’s voice was in narrating the book, it pulled the viewer out of the moment, because it wasn’t Roger and didn’t sound like Roger.
The other thing people were saying was ‘I wish you’d feature more of Roger’s writing.’ And that frustrated me because all of the narration WAS Roger’s writing from the book, it just again wasn’t his voice. So then the feeling was to find someone who sounded like Roger, not thinking we’d ever find that great voice actor Stephen Stanton, who was actually discovered by Chaz and her team.
Ebert: I asked Stephen if he could go into the studio, because when I first heard him he was the closest one to the voice, after I had rejected a number of submissions. I asked him to do one thing for me in the studio, just go and record the line, ‘Hi, I’m Roger Ebert.’ When he did that he nailed it, and everybody in the room said, ‘that’s the guy.’
HollywoodChicago.com: Chaz, you revealed your own secrets regarding recovery from alcohol in the film. When you first met Roger, what traits in him did you recognize as being alcoholic, and how did those traits soften as your years together went by?
Ebert: I never saw any traits that I would describe as alcoholic. Roger had been sober for 10 years by the time we met, and I don’t think he identified with his drinking side anymore. In fact, we wondered how it would have been if we had met while we both were still drinking. We didn’t know, we only knew ourselves in recovery.
James: How long had you been in recovery?
Ebert: Our first date was in 1989, so it had been two years.
HollywoodChicago.com: Steve, you mentioned at a January screening that you were an acquaintance of Roger and Chaz before you took the film project. When did you feel that this acquaintance evolved into friendship?
James: First, yes, it didn’t become a friendship until I began to make the film. Beforehand, I was a professional acquaintance, I admired Roger, and had seen he and Chaz at various events over a 20 year period.
Ebert: Usually he’d just say hello, and scurry away. [laughs] We’d say, ‘let’s have a conversation with that ‘Hoop Dreams’ guy, but Steve would just say hello and rush off.
James: It was a bit because he was ‘Roger Ebert,’ but mostly it was because I took very seriously that wall between filmmaker and film critic. I was trying to be very respectful of that wall. So when I started doing the film, I was somewhat liberated that I didn’t have that friendship previous to the production, and I’m grateful for what developed as we collaborated.
HollywoodChicago.com: Chaz, after Roger had passed, and you had a moment to yourself, what moment from your life together kept coming back to you, and how did it give you a sense of peace?
Ebert: One of the things I thought about, and I still think about frequently, is the nonverbal communication we enjoyed. Because Roger and I would look at each other, and there were no need for words. I’m not talking about the mental telepathy we developed after he couldn’t speak, it was just looking at him and recognizing that person as good, and that I was so glad that he was in my life – how lucky I was to find that person and how generous that person was. We would look at each other and fall into a deep pool of love. That’s what I think about.
HollywoodChicago.com: Finally, this is for both of you. For an audience member coming into ‘Life Itself’ who is unfamiliar with Roger’s life and perspective, what do you each personally want that hypothetical person to take away from the film, and why?
Ebert: I want them to take away a fews things – live your passion in life because that’s what Roger did, and that’s why he had so much fun. I called it ‘living out loud.’ If he loved a film, he was unabashed in his praise of it, and I loved that he did that. I also loved that he loved me, my children and grandchildren, so much so that we’d have that same fun and that same joy. I want people to understand if you have someone close, hold them closer.
I loved that he wrote about the movies so beautifully, but I also loved that he wrote about life so beautifully – whether it was race, politics, religion or anything else. He also showed us how to look death in the eye and say, ‘I am not afraid, I’m coming for you,’ and embraced death as much as he embraced life.
James: The other thing I could possibly add to that Roger was a guy that came from very humble beginnings, and went on to have a grand impact on so many people in ways that were completely unexpected. From winning the first Pulitzer Prize for film criticism at the ripe old age of 32, to the TV show that reinvented the film critic, I don’t think Roger ever thought he’d become famous, but there he was.
And then, in the wake of everything that happened to his health, he reinvented himself again, and kind of reinvented film criticism yet again by his early embrace of technology and the internet – which enabled him to have a ‘voice’ and impact on film for his entire life. He was always looking forward, and it’s not because he didn’t look back in fondness – the memoir makes that clear – he just faced forward, and embraced the new.
Ebert: One other thing I want to emphasize. Roger was a community builder, so I hope people will get together and see this film in a theater. See it with people you love, see it with friends, see it together.
James: See it with someone who you always argue with about the movies – that would be the perfect person to go with and see ‘Life Itself.’
 | By PATRICK McDONALD |