Interview: Director Steve James on the Roger Ebert Documentary “Life Itself”

Posted on July 5, 2014 at 3:32 pm

Roger Ebert said that Steve James’ documentary “Hoop Dreams” was the greatest film of the first decade of the 21st century. He wrote, “A film like “Hoop Dreams” is what the movies are for. It takes us, shakes us, and make us think in new ways about the world around us. It gives us the impression of having touched life itself.”

Those last two words became the title of Ebert’s autobiography. And when it came to make a documentary about Ebert’s life, James was the one Ebert wanted to make it. There were no restrictions or approvals from the subject. Ebert wanted his story told the way James thought best.

I spoke to James about making the film and the great loves of Ebert’s life.

Roger loved it when his friend Bill recited the last page of The Great Gatsby. Why was that so important to him?

I think Bill really nails it in the film so I’m just going to steal his thoughts on it. Number one it’s a great piece of writing and Roger loved novels. He probably loved novels as much as he loved movies.
In fact when he was younger, quite young he was one of those guys that had charted out his life. He was probably about 17 when he said, “OK, I’m going to be a newspaperman and then I’m going to be a political columnist then I’m going to move to New York to be a novelist.” He charted that out.

So literature meant the world to him and that passage meant a lot. But I think what Bill says in the movie is true. It’s that it was about a self-made man. Now in Gatsby’s case there was a lot of artifice there. It wasn’t with Roger but that notion that you can come from modest or nothing background and make something grand of yourself I think appealed to Roger as a small-town kid from Urbana who went on to the big city and sort of conquered the world in his own way but in an honest way. And then you know it’s about loss. I think Bill talks about in the movie about the loss of Roger’s father and death and the way in which death sort of haunted Roger. When he lost his father at that young age, it was not something he ever really got over according to Bill. Bill tells stories about other passages that he loved too that of course Bill committed to memory. He would quote something and then Roger would say, “Tell me again.” Or they would be at a dinner table and he would say, “Bill, give me the last page of Gatsby or this Yeats poem. And Bill is one of those guys that just commit a lot of great stuff to memory including a great editorial passage from when Roger was in college that is just remarkable.

He was a fully formed writer at the beginning as Bill says.

Yeah. I mean if I was a writer I would have hated this guy. I mean really hated them, just hated him. He wrote so well, plainly but with spiritedness and well chosen adjectives.

How did you find someone to do the narration who sounded so exactly like Roger?

Really I owe this to Chaz and her team. They were looking for someone to come in and read some of his great reviews, audio recordings. We had been for editing purposes using the book narrator. He did a perfectly good job but he didn’t sound anything like Roger. So we had been using him in editing because it’s convenient, but I knew I wanted to replace him and my thinking up until they found Stephen Stanton was that we would just find someone who kind of sounded like Roger but we weren’t going to try to channel the actual Roger. But then when she said, “We found this guy, you should hear him,” I was just like, “Oh my God!” And then my next concern though was, he was doing like a review on the show so it was kind of swashbuckling Roger and all that, it was kind of big and broad. So then I had him I reach out to him and had him read some of our narration passages that we had chosen that are much more intimate and he said, “Okay, I’ll do it but send me whatever kind of intimate recording.” So I sent him Roger’s Fresh Air interview with Terry Gross and we just sent him another interview that was done in Champaign with him where he was very relaxed and kind of speaking more quietly, more conversationally. He is not an impressionist; impressionist does not do him justice. He is an actor who can act in other people’s voices. He read the memoir himself before we did at the recordings. He listened to these tapes religiously and then he came in and he took directions like, I would say, “Oh, that was great but I feel like it could be even a little more private like we are just across the table together and you are speaking” and then he would boom! He was remarkable! He is so good that even though in the movie, in his voice, in doing Roger’s voice, he said, “When I lost my ability to speak…” there are a lot of smart people who say, “How did you get Roger to record it?” That irony of, “No way, that can’t be him,” just doesn’t even dawn on some people because they are just so immersed and that is what I wanted it to be. I did not want to fool you which is why I made sure you know if you are listening closely enough but on the other hand I want you to immediately forget it because it’s Roger’s words.

How do you as a filmmaker bring together several very distinct episodes in his life?

You could call it a three act, four act, or even five act life. He had a lot of adventures and he went to a lot of places in his life. He left a small town, he went to Chicago and became a newspaper man and fell into this job reviewing movies and then there was drinking and then he gave that up. Then there’s the TV show and then Gene’s dying and then the cancer and then the blogging. I mean it’s like there are so many aspects to Roger’s life. Plus he loved to go to the Cannes film Festival and he loved to go to the Conference on World Affairs and a lot more.

I felt like I wanted to use the present as a springboard to the past, something he does in a memoir in places which was really moving to me and so I wanted to do that. But otherwise when I do interviews, I do interviews with people for hours on end and we talked about a lot of stuff and not all that got in the movie but when you start to put the movie together, you start trying to identify what are the strongest strains in his life and I guess what I kind of came to realize is, and I did not realize this from the start but I came to realize that the film is kind of ultimately a series of love affairs. It’s a love affair with writing, it’s a love affair with movies, it’s a love affair even with Chicago of course. And then there’s Chaz.

And kind of like what all those love affairs add up to, in a weird way it is a love affair with Gene Siskel. It’s a torturous one but it’s a love affair. It’s like he had a series of love affairs but he was never not true to his wife. It all adds up to this kind of love affair with life. I mean he called the book Life Itself, not My Life and Movies or Me at the Movies. “Movie” is not in the title. It’s life itself that was the grand movie of his life, you know what I mean?

Was it hard for you to maintain objectivity as Roger became seriously ill?

I never worry about trying to maintain objectivity in that kind of journalistic way. Because like for instance I knew that this ultimately was going to be an admiring portrait of Roger Ebert because I wouldn’t have wanted to make it otherwise. I am not that kind of filmmaker. I want to be around people I am interested in. And so I knew that so it was never going to be objective in any kind of purely journalistic way. I did not go out of my way to find someone who hated Roger or something. But I went out of my way to find people critical of his contributions. I knew that I wanted it to be honest, though, and I think there is a difference between honest and objective. Honest is it may have a point of view and I feel like all my films do but I try not to make my point of view blow out of the water and eliminate anything that’s contrary to it, that’s contrary to who this person is or that there is other ways to look at this person. And so that was important. I mean when I saw how stubborn Roger could be with Chaz, I was a little surprised until I thought about it, “Well, you don’t get to be Roger Ebert and you don’t survive all he’s been through without being stubborn.” And I am not talking about just doing this; I’m talking about 20 years with Gene Siskel. You don’t get to be that way without having a stubborn streak in you. He had had a toughness about him that was essential to his success. He also had a generosity about him that everyone commented on that didn’t just happen late in life. Although he became even more generous, it was there all along.

In the film we hear filmmakers talk about how instrumental he was in helping them. How did he help you with “Hoop Dreams?”

First, he and Gene reviewed the film on the show when it was just going to Sundance. For them to even review it was remarkable because it had no distribution and it was three hours long and they knew that. And so they watched it and then they decided they were going to go on the show while it was at Sundance and they said something to the effect of, “You can only see this film if you are at the Sundance film Festival but we really feel that this film should be seen by a wider audience.” And they just sort of planted this flag. Sundance made an enormous difference because up until then, it was the three-hour documentary about two kids playing basketball that no one ever heard of and nobody was really going to see it. It was getting some buzz with the audiences a little bit but the distributors weren’t. And then suddenly, it was like we were a hot ticket at Sundance and we had ended up with three or four different offers and none of that would have happened without what they did, no way that would’ve happened even if they loved it.

And then over the years, Roger continued to write very thoughtfully about my work and support my work. Three years ago when “The Interrupters” came out, when it premiered at Sundance, we had sent a screener to him, just hoping that he would watch it. I don’t tweet but someone told me, “Roger just tweeted this wonderful thing about the film at Sundance.” He knew that we were premiering there; he knew exactly what he was doing. He had 800,000 Twitter followers; it was picked up, it was tweeted all around and then he continued to champion that film right up through the end of the year and was outraged when we did not get shortlisted for the Oscar. He was just such a supporter of my work. For me to be able to kind of do this film means a lot.

Related Tags:

Life Itself

Posted on July 3, 2014 at 6:00 pm

Lowest Recommended Age:	High School
MPAA Rating:	Rated R for brief sexual images/nudity and language
Profanity:	Some strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	References to drinking and alcohol abuse
Violence/ Scariness:	Scenes of illness, sad death
Diversity Issues:	Diverse characters
Date Released to Theaters:	July 4, 2014

Roger Ebert, the most influential film critic of all time, gets the film he deserves directed by one of the many filmmakers he championed, Steve James (“Hoop Dreams,” “The Interrupters”). It is co-produced by Martin Scorsese, whose emotional appearance in the film to talk about the impact of the support—and criticism—he received from Ebert is one of the highlights.

But this is not the story of a movie critic. It is the story of a life, a big, grand, messy, vital, generous life. It was a life with every bit as much drama, comedy, tension, romance, insight, compassion, and, as Ebert would say, civilizing influence and empathy creation as any of the films included in Roger’s pantheon of Great Movies.

The film shows us Ebert as a child in the university town of Urbana, Illinois, as a college student there, as a young newsman who, still in his 20’s, became the movie critic for the Chicago Sun-Times, and later a pioneering presence on television and online. He drank too much until he admitted that he was an alcoholic. He and Chicago Tribune critic Gene Siskel created a television show that began on the local PBS channel, WTTW, and then went into national syndication and moved to commercial television. While some print critics complained that it was stunt-ish, the show elevated serious engagement with movies to a nationwide conversation. A highlight of the film is the testy outtakes from the show, making it clear that the competitiveness and tinge of animosity that made their on-screen interactions so fascinating were toned down from the real strains between them. And it turns out Siskel hung out with Hugh Hefner at the Playboy Mansion during the wild era of the 60’s. “Roger may have written ‘Beyond the Valley of the Dolls,’ but Gene lived it,” Siskel’s widow says with a smile.

The intensity of the competition between the two critics is very funny. So are the outrageously awful clothes and haircuts (there are some things even the ’70s does not excuse) and the amateurishness of the early episodes. But the very real respect and, ultimately, admiration, between them makes it clear that this was one of the most significant relationships of Roger’s life. It was his devastation over Siskel’s decision not to tell anyone about his own illness that made Roger resolve to be very open and honest about his own.

Ebert had great hungers, which led to excesses, not just in alcohol and food but in work, producing more reviews and books than any other critic and dabbling as a screenwriter in the legendarily awful “Beyond the Valley of the Dolls.” Once he stopped drinking, he developed the courage to pursue his greatest hunger, the hunger for love and intimacy. The man who called movies “an empathy machine” was ready, at age 50, to begin to feel those feelings outside of the screening room. It is deeply moving to witness Ebert’s transformation through his finding a deep romantic love and a large extended family at age 50 with Chaz. And then he got cancer, and we see the impact his illness had on his writing. He lost a great deal, but, James shows us, he found more.

Roger loved movies deeply, personally, viscerally. With this documentary, the movies return that love.

Parents should know that this movie includes scenes of illness and a sad death, some strong languages, discussions of alcohol abuse and alcoholism, smoking, and some sexual references and images from movies with adult material.

Family discussion: What were the most important turning points in Ebert’s life? Do you agree that film is an “empathy machine?”

If you like this, try: Roger Ebert’s books and his mesmerizing shot-by-shot commentary on Citizen Kane

Related Tags:

Critics Documentary Movies -- format

My Interview at Rogerebert.com

Posted on June 23, 2014 at 12:02 pm

Many thanks to Rogerebert.com for interviewing me in their series on movie critics.

Where did you grow up, and what was it like?

I grew up in the suburbs of Chicago. But when I was in 4th-5th grade, we lived in Washington, D.C. because my Dad was the Chairman of the FCC in the Kennedy Administration. It was a time of endless excitement and possibility in early 1960’s Washington, and I got to meet historic figures like Eleanor Roosevelt, the President and Mrs. Kennedy, and Robert Kennedy (who took us on a tour of the FBI).

I’m the oldest of three girls. Every night at dinner, we were each given three minutes to tell the family something interesting about our day. My parents’ stories were always fascinating, always about some project to heal the world (tikkun olem), always filled with great characters and a sense of purpose and adventure. All three girls grew up to be lawyers. Martha is the dean of Harvard Law School and an expert on issues from civil rights to war crimes and Mary is the leading expert on legal issues pertaining to libraries, everything from the Patriot Act to copyright and ebooks. And when I’m not writing about movies, my legal speciality is corporate governance (overpaid CEOs, business frauds and failures, shareholder rights).

Was anyone else in your family into movies? If so, what effect did they have on your moviegoing tastes?

My parents both love movies, and to this day some of my favorites are ones they urged me to see. (Though I will never forgive my father for accidentally giving away the ending to “Charade” because he did not realize I hadn’t seen it before.) My mother especially would encourage me to watch movies she loved when they were on television and I always wanted to know why she thought a film was worth seeing, usually a particular actor, an award-winner, or a great story. That was a fabulous introduction to older films and to thinking about what made one movie better than another.

My dad had a client who allowed him free access to a fabulous array of 16 mm films, so he got a 16 mm projector, the kind they had in schools, and my mom had a screen installed that pulled down from the ceiling. We saw “7 Brides for 7 Brothers” and “On the Town” more times than I could count. I especially remember seeing my first Marx Brothers film at our house. It was “A Night at the Opera,” and I literally fell off my chair in the “sanity clause” scene.

And the last day of my freshman year in high school, I was diagnosed with mononucleosis, complicated by hepatitis. I ended up spending the entire summer in bed. My parents wheeled the little black and white portable TV into my bedroom. We had just four channels then, no cable or DVDs, so I had to watch whatever movies were on, mostly from the 40’s and 50’s. I could not have asked for a better introduction to thinking about movies.

In college and law school, I went to my hometown public library during spring vacation each year to make a list from their collection of 16 mm films and handed it to the circulation desk with a note that said, “Give me one every Friday all summer.” I’d have people over for apple pie and ice cream every week. In those days before VCRs and DVDs and cable channels, that was a rare chance to see films that were not in current release. I was also lucky to have access to a couple of repertory houses in Chicago, including the Biograph Theater, where John Dillinger was shot because he went out to see “Manhattan Melodrama,” and where the rest rooms were designated by life-size photos of Dillinger and the Lady in Red.

What’s the first movie you remember seeing, and what impression did it make on you?

My parents recently came across a letter my dad wrote to my grandparents when I was four. He said they had just taken me to my first film, “Westward Ho the Wagons” with Fess Parker. He wrote, “Nell couldn’t have loved it more. She talks of nothing else and wants to go to the movies all the time.” That hasn’t changed.

What’s the first movie that made you think, “Hey, some people made this. It didn’t just exist. There’s a human personality behind it.”

“Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid,” with its shift from sepia tones to color and the juxtaposition of contemporary music in a period setting. That was the first time I thought about anything beyond the story and the actors and how entertaining it was and started paying attention to the directors’ choices.

What’s the first movie you ever walked out of?

The ONLY movie I have ever walked out of was William Castle’s “13 Ghosts,” with the special glasses you put on if you wanted to see the ghosts. When they told us to put the glasses on and I saw the ghosts, I told my mother, “I have to go RIGHT NOW.” We went to the theater across the street and saw “Bells are Ringing” instead, which is still one of my favorites. I am now a William Castle fan, too.

What’s the funniest film you’ve ever seen?

Can’t argue with AFI on this one: “Some Like It Hot.” I love Jack Lemmon as Daphne. Also on my list: the Marx Brothers, Laurel and Hardy, “Bringing Up Baby,” “Sleeper,” “Get Shorty,” “Stuck on You,” “Libeled Lady” and “I Love You Again” with William Powell and Myrna Loy, and three films by Dale Launer: “Ruthless People,” “Dirty Rotten Scoundrels,” and “My Cousin Vinny.” And I adore what Stanley Cavell calls the “comedies of remarriage,” from “His Girl Friday” to “My Favorite Wife.”

What’s the saddest film you’ve ever seen?

“Waterloo Bridge” And I cried buckets in “The Fault in Our Stars”

What’s the scariest film you’ve ever seen?

I don’t see a lot of scary films, but for me that moment when Shelley Duvall sees what Jack Nicholson has been typing in “The Shining” is the scariest moment of any movie ever.

What’s the most romantic film you’ve ever seen?

“Two for the Road” with Audrey Hepburn and Albert Finney, because it is that rare film not just about falling in love but about staying in love. What a smart film. And what a gorgeous pair.

What’s the first television show you ever saw that made you think television could be more than entertainment?

I grew up with a dad who famously called television “a vast wasteland” (and who therefore inspired the name of the sinking ship on “Gilligan’s Island”). So my parents had the three of us thinking very critically about television from the beginning. But that meant that they would sit down with us to watch programs they thought were worthwhile and that made me think about what was valuable about the shows they selected for us. They told us that “Rocky and Bullwinkle” cartoons were better than some of the other shows we watched, and, as I thought about it, they were right. My favorites were two series featuring films, Fred Silverman’s famous “Family Classics” series hosted by Frazier Thomas and the “CBS Children’s Film Festival,” hosted by our family friend Burr Tillstrom, my first exposure to non-US films.

My dad was also very involved in what became PBS. When I was in high school, some of those dinnertime conversations were about a revolutionary new idea in children’s programming he helped to get started called “Sesame Street.” I happened to be home the day it premiered and watched the very first episode. I still remember the animation shorts I later discovered were done by the Hubleys. The imagination and insight of the show was stunning. And I fell in love with it all over again when my children were little. I actually called my husband at the office to tell him that Smokey Robinson was singing “U’ve Really Got a Hold on Me” while his leg was being grabbed by the letter U. Okay, I was a little stir-crazy, but that was pretty awesome.

What book do you think about or revisit the most?

I cycle through all the Jane Austen novels frequently, rereading each of them every few years. I also love to revisit some of my childhood favorites like Louisa May Alcott and The Phantom Tollbooth. My favorite book about movies is still Truffaut/Hitchcock.

What album or recording artist have you listened to the most, and why?

I will always be a Beatlemaniac. They provided the soundtrack to my teen years, arriving when I was 11 and breaking up when I was a senior in high school, and the music is still the best pop ever produced. I love their films, too. I’ve already put in an order for the Criterion “Hard Day’s Night.”

Is there a movie that you think is great, or powerful, or perfect, but that you never especially want to see again, and why?

There are many films I admire a lot but are too grueling to look forward to watching again, like “Schindler’s List.”

What movie have you seen more times than any other?

Probably my all-time favorite, “The Philadelphia Story.” This really happened: we were visiting friends who had a spectacular new hi-def television and I had the chance to watch anything I wanted from their enormous library and their hundreds of cable and satellite stations. I was really enjoying exploring all the options until I saw that TCM was running the very non-hi-def “The Philadelphia Story,” which I have seen countless times and know by heart, and yet, that was what I watched. And I don’t regret it.

What was your first R-rated movie, and did you like it?

I turned 18 the year the MPAA rating system began, so I never had that experience of anticipating a movie I had previously been too young to see. But that meant that as I was turning 18, for the first time nudity and language and behavior that had never been in films before was all of a sudden on the screen. I do remember the first time I saw nudity in a movie (“The President’s Analyst,” great film) and the fuss over “Bonnie and Clyde,” “Midnight Cowboy,” “The Graduate,” and “I am Curious (Yellow).”

What’s the most visually beautiful film you’ve ever seen?

“The Black Stallion”

Who are your favorite leading men, past and present?

When I was pregnant with our son, the doctor told us that the baby would recognize our voices when he was born, from hearing them in utero. My husband said, “In that case, he’ll recognize Cary Grant’s voice, too. She loves to watch old movies.” Our son still teases me that Cary Grant’s voice makes him feel all warm and cozy. Cary Grant is my all-time favorite, but I love all the greats of the classic era: Gregory Peck, Henry Fonda, Sidney Poitier, Fred Astaire, James Stewart, William Holden. Favorites of today: Harrison Ford, Denzel Washington, Tom Hanks, Will Smith, Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Bradley Cooper

Who are your favorite leading ladies, past and present?

From the past: Katharine Hepburn, Bette Davis, Lauren Bacall, Audrey Hepburn, Marilyn Monroe, Elizabeth Taylor, Jean Harlow, Barbara Stanwyck, Hedy Lamarr, Grace Kelly. From the present: Meryl Streep, Viola Davis, Jennifer Lawrence, Halle Berry, Amy Adams, Elle and Dakota Fanning, Sandra Bullock, Cate Blanchett, Nicole Beharie

Who’s your favorite modern filmmaker?

Tie between Aaron Sorkin and Michel Gondry.

Who’s your least favorite modern filmmaker?

Adam Sandler, because he is so damn lazy.

What film do you love that most people seem to hate?

“I Heart Huckabees” and “Waking Life” — I am confident both will someday be seen as visionary classics.

What film do you hate that most people love?

I hate “Million Dollar Baby” with the white hot hatred of a thousand fiery suns.

Tell me about a moviegoing experience you will never forget—not just because of the movie, but because of the circumstances in which you saw it.

I was a freshman in college, on the other side of the country from my boyfriend (now husband), feeling a bit lost. I watched “Sullivan’s Travels” for the first time and it was one of those right movie/right moment marvels where I was a different person at the end of the film than I was at the beginning. “There’s a lot to be said for making people laugh. Did you know that that’s all some people have? It isn’t much, but it’s better than nothing in this cockeyed caravan.” Later I would read a poem by W.H. Auden that made the same point equally well and it has become a favorite: “The funniest mortals and the kindest/are most aware of the baffle of being/don’t kid themselves our care is consolable/but believe a laugh is less heartless than tears.”

What aspect of modern theatrical moviegoing do you like least?

I’m lucky to see most films surrounded by my critic pals, which I enjoy very much. But audience members who talk, text, or eat loud and smelly food should be forced to watch “Gigli” until they learn to behave.

What aspect of moviegoing during your childhood do you miss the most?

Going to movies with my parents! Though we still enjoy watching movies together on DVD when I visit them.

Have you ever damaged a friendship, or thought twice about a relationship, because you disagreed about whether a movie was good or bad?

Not for myself. But I knew one of my children’s friendships was doomed based on the friend’s favorite film. And no, I won’t reveal which film, which child, or which friend!

What movies have you dreamed about?

I often dream I am in a movie. Once I dreamed I went to a movie and it was nothing but coming attractions. Anyone want to try to interpret that one?

What concession stand item can you not live without?

I love fresh-popped popcorn with real butter. If you know a theater that serves it, tell me!

Related Tags:

Critics Media Appearances

Join Chaz Ebert for a Google Hangout Today Celebrating Roger Ebert’s Birthday

Posted on June 18, 2014 at 8:00 am

Today, Wed, Jun 18, from 2:00 PM – 2:30 PM, you can join Chaz Ebert and Steve James, the director of the Roger Ebert documentary, “Life Itself,” in a Google Hangout. Participants can win tickets to the Los Angeles, Chicago or New York Premieres of the film.

The Hangout will be moderated by editor-in-chief of Rogerebert.com, Matt Zoller Seitz and will include members of The Ebert Club, Indiegogo supporters of the movie, and surprise guests. We will have a lively discussion about movies, Roger’s life, influence, and the upcoming release of “Life Itself.”

Criticwire Survey: Should You Look Down on YA Movies?

Posted on June 14, 2014 at 8:00 am

The folks at Criticwire have a weekly survey of questions for movie critics. This week’s question is especially important.

Q: Many of the positive reviews for “The Fault in Our Stars” boil down to either “It’s good for what it is” or “It gets the job done.” But in an essay at Slate that deals in part with John Green’s source novel, Ruth Graham says that one of the reasons more adult readers have turned to Young Adult novels is because it offers the pleasures of literary fiction without its challenges: “Adults,” she writes, “should feel embarrassed about reading literature written for children.” So, as a critic, what’s your feeling about measuring a movie—whether it’s “The Fault in Our Stars” or “X-Men: Days of Future Past” — against what it sets out to do as opposed to what it could do? (Likewise, do you damn “Orange Is the New Black” for not being “Oz”?) Do you take it on its own terms, or do you set your own?

My answer:

One of the reasons more adult readers have turned to Young Adult novels is that they are so damn good. There is a reason that YA and graphic novel sales are flourishing while what is considered traditional “literary” fiction is collapsing on itself, smothered by its preciousness, pretension, and neurasthenic post-modernism. It is often said that if “The Catcher in the Rye” was published today, it would be categorized as a YA novel. And yet it is still read with thoughtful appreciation for its art and depth, even by those who believe they confine themselves to work with literary aspirations.

This is not to say that best-selling YA books are all literature, any more than best-selling books for adults meet that standard. But too often books are put in the YA category just because they are about teenagers. Well, so is “Romeo and Juliet.” Stories are about teenagers for the same reason that stories are about war and death and vampires and zombies and MacGuffins that have to be found or the world will explode in 24 hours. As Augustus says in “The Fault in Our Stars,” it’s a metaphor. The heightened emotions and discoveries of that time of life intensify the elements of a story to provide a dramatic framework.

Graham should be ashamed by trying to embarrass anyone who is moved by a work of fiction. One of the most liberating discoveries of my life was learning that no one’s childhood is long enough to read all of the great books written for children and teenagers. I reread my favorites with increased pleasure and deeper understanding. I read new authors with great appreciation, and keep in mind that one generation’s low culture is quite often understood to be literature by the next.

That said, all movies should be measured against their own aspirations and the expectations of the intended audience. Otherwise, all movie reviews would read: “Well, it’s not ‘Citizen Kane.'”