Chaz Ebert Celebrates Life Itself and Roger Ebert
Towards the end of a course on the works of Nietzsche and Freud, one student finally, bravely asked the question we all knew our philosophy professor did not want us to ask: “Which one got it right?” Our professor decided to bite, explaining that the person with the best theory—the more powerful theory—was the better of the two. And when someone else asked how you know that a theory—or that anything, for that matter—is powerful, the professor sort of smirked and said, “You shall know them by their fruits.”
These words come to mind during one of the most amazing scenes in Life Itself, Steven James’s 2014 documentary on the life and times of the late Roger Ebert. It’s one of those scenes that, were it to have occurred in a narrative film, we film critics would have rolled our eyes a bit, knowing that the filmmaker and screenwriter had taken the whole “suspension of disbelief” thing a bit too far. We see a picture of Roger Ebert with a fan, who’d asked him to take a photo with her, and her young niece. The eight-year-old little girl would grow up to make a film titled I Will Follow, about which Ebert would write a glowing review, not knowing at the time that he’d actually met the auteur decades before, and inspired her greatly.
How do you know the power and impact of someone like Roger Ebert? You know him by his fruits—Ava DuVernay is just one of them. Countless other filmmakers, many of whom appear in Life Itself, are also in some way or another the fruits of Ebert’s labor. It might sound like a cliché, but, through James’s lens, one does get the sense that nearly everyone he touched—physically or otherwise—left Ebert’s presence a little different. And the same can be said about the effect of Life Itself on its audience, which can only mean that the documentary captures something more than the fascinating, triumphant and difficult life of Roger Ebert—it captures his essence.
Almost two years to the date of his passing, Paste caught up with Chaz Ebert, who continues to celebrate the film and the legacy of her husband—a beloved movie critic who shared her love of life, the arts and of diversity, in the truest sense of the word.
Paste Magazine: Chaz, I saw that you recently headed up the SXSW panel, “The Future of Film Criticism: Diversify or Die.” I love that title, and I wanted to start out by talking about that a bit. Conversations like this can be both empowering and frustrating. What were your feelings when you walked away from the panel?
Chaz Ebert: I walked away feeling very hopeful, because we had such a good group of people in the audience, and their questions showed that they understood why diversity is a good thing. And they understood that when I was talking about diversity, it wasn’t only racial or ethnic diversity. It means that there will more women writing about film, and it’s also about people who are physically disabled, and talking about film from their standpoint. It’s about sexual identity issues—you see more and more, especially in TV, that there are transgender characters and gay characters. So we’ve expanded the definition of diversity. And we talked about having the people who write about film and television start to mirror people in our society. So, I felt hopeful because we also talked about seeing changes.
And, for instance—and not that one person will change everything—but certainly Shonda Rhimes is making a big impression on people in Hollywood and around the country. We definitely see improvement. And then there’s Ava DuVernay. Roger was a growing supporter of her. She started with a movie that she financed herself for $50,000, and then came full circle with Selma, and got a lot of accolades for that.
And diversity really ties in with Life Itself, because Roger was a proponent of independent filmmakers and diverse filmmakers.
Paste: Yes, and it’s funny you mention Shonda Rhimes because she recently won an award and said that she doesn’t see herself as someone who embraces “diversity”—she calls it “normalizing.”
Ebert: I saw that! Exactly! And even though we used the term, that’s what I said too, and that’s what I mean by saying that the people who write about our entertainment need to mirror our society.
Paste: You’ve said before that it’s a different experience for you, almost every time you watch Life Itself. Do you still watch the movie? And, if so, what’s the experience like for you now?
Ebert: I’m trying to think of the last time I watched it. In fact, I’m invited this week to a screening, and I don’t know if I’m going to watch it. You know, I watched it recently and really enjoyed it! Now, I’m almost—almost—able to sit back and really enjoy it. But sometimes I watch it, and my heart strings get all entangled again, and I cry and I laugh, and I go through all the emotions all over again. Even though it’s been almost two years—on April 4th it will be two years since Roger passed away—it still feels new. I’m in the process of healing, because time does help with that. But we were together for so long and we had such a big impact on each other’s lives, so I don’t know if I’ll ever be “normal.” But it does get better. I can say that for sure.
And I’m so proud of the film! I’m so proud of how he teaches us to accept what life throws at us with such grace and ease. That’s something that, when I watch it, sometimes I look and just marvel at his courage and his bravery, and his gumption—he wasn’t gonna let life defeat him. And yet, when he’s ready to go, he tells me! He’s ready to go. He’s not afraid. And that’s a beautiful thing too. Because, living through that with him—that took away my fear of death. When it is my time, I’m hoping that I do it as gracefully as he did.
Paste: There were so many great scenes in Life Itself, but two that were really memorable to me were very different. I loved the clip of Gene [Siskel] and Roger arguing in between takes, and then making the McDonald’s jokes about each other.
Ebert: (laughs) Oh, yes!
Paste: And then, I was also really taken aback with the medical procedure that was shown. The film occupies these two spaces and navigates them so well—the great comedy and Ebert’s sense of humor, and the realities of loss and pain. Did you always trust Steve James with this story? How did your relationship with him change over the course of shooting the film?
Ebert: We did trust him. And in fact, if Steve James’s and Martin Scorsese’s names hadn’t been attached to this, we probably wouldn’t have done it. We had been approached by some other people to do it, and Roger wasn’t interested. He actually told people “no”—that he wasn’t interested in having a film made about his life. But then Steve Zaillian [Schindler’s List writer] and his producing partner Garret Basch came along, and they had read Roger’s memoirs. They actually brought the project to James and Scorsese. And with all four of those names, we just said, “What?!” How can you say no to something like that?