Interesting essay. Gives me a chance to see movies about cancer and illness from the point of view of somebody who has been there. Thanks.

Not that it's especially important, but the Jack Nicholson/Morgan Freeman movie was called "The Bucket List." You may want to fix that.

The issue you highlight here is my main problem with films that attempt to portray terminal illness. The sick people never get messy. They get a little pale, have beautiful bald heads, have sunken cheeks, cough a bit, get chapped lips, drool... I witnessed the journey that is terminal cancer while caring for my dad in hospice, though in retrospect my father's body didn't decline visibly (he was up 22 pounds at his death) but everyone around him did. And he did not have any final words of wisdom. He could not speak nor was he cognizant in those final days. But then again, there would be no film if the main character was unconscious and unable to tie up all those loose ends and do all of those things on their bucket list.

I reckon we all know the ugly truth and are happy to go along with what film makers create. Farrah Fawcett's documentary of her fight with Cancer was spot on but then it was a documentary. Who would want to pay to see that?

Also a brilliant movie that is not for the dying so much: 'La guerre est déclarée'
http://youtu.be/DUuLw2Nzp80

Not sure what movie you saw, but 50/50 was not it. Katherine is not a support group leader, she is Adam's therapist. Baker Hall does not play a patient in that group, he is just another chemo patient.

and anything but sweetness grows between Adam and his GF, she gets far more distant and he becomes super bitter toward her.

Ebert: Right about Katherine. I recall Hall in a group discussion. Sloppy writing lost the point that the sweetness grows between Adam and Katherine.

I find that almost anything Joseph Gordon-Levitt does worth watching, so I'm really looking forward to "50/50." Hopefully the buddy side of the story will have more play than the romantic will-she-or-won't-she-commit quandary.

But your point about movies glamorizing illness ("Camille," anyone?) is of course preceded by a long history of illness glamorizing and making people "interesting" in literature. I'm reading Sontag's "Illness as Metaphor" for the first time, and while many of the references are outdated as far as cancer goes, it provides an interesting glimpse into how tuberculosis in the 1800s and eventually mental illness in the mid twentieth century became a glamorized romantic notion of character development--in books, art, fashion, etc. (Again, one the reasons why "Wit" is both brutal and vitalizing.)

I thought the Royal Tenenbaums had an interesting take. Royal was pretending to be sick, but he was discovered by Danny Glover's character because he was acting too much like someone who is sick in the movies. Turned out to be a great film.

The correct title of the Freeman/Nicholson movie is "the Bucket List", Mr. Ebert. Might wanna change it before the trolls come out.

That was wonderful and honest. Thank your, sir. You remind me of the end of The Sun Also Rises, when Brett laments that she and Jake could have had "such a damned good time together." Jake's response: "Yes. Isn't it pretty to think so?"

Ali MacGraw's Syndrome makes me feel the same way. Do people grow more radiant as they approach death? It's certainly pretty to think so.

We need films like this. They help us deal with life, not death.

YOU need them, I'm healthy. (Well, except for a touch of muscular dystrophy, but I'll content myself with "Pride of the Yankees"...In which that real-life disease was just as cleanly and clinically whitewashed into an Ali McGraw/Morgan Freeman Hollywood plot device, but at least it's not a screenwriter well that's gone to as often as cancer's.)

I can appreciate that 50 is autobiographical, but as noted in the last review, Restless just seems to be playing Harold & Maude for indie drama, and without the quirky sense of rebel-without-a-cause counterculture that could come out of 1971.
In most of the indie pieces (particularly given Van Sant's pedigree), you start to wonder how many of the more fictional "cancer" dramas are really AIDS dramas in mainstream disguise, and there's a film trope that lost its currency from overuse well before the end of the millennium.

In a way, the genuine ones ARE for the dying, in the same way that old folks in conversation will happily compare notes on joint pains and medical plans, but it doesn't play well with those not managing the messy day-to-day details.
It's more a confessional supply than demand (like Wit's original stage play, where public diarists are not only approved of but expected), but then, nobody ever asked a filmmaker to make his confessional festival dramas.

I suppose the living don't necessarily want to think about getting a staph infection because the catheter was left in their urethra too long. Don't want too many close-ups of a face that's been melted away by MSRA.

I recall in 'Outbreak' - the ravages of the disease are shown in very gory detail. People's eyes are leaking blood, their faces are covered in oozing pustules. Then we get to the end of the movie, and Rene Russo's face is... slightly flushed? It looked like she was suffering from Hay fever as opposed to an extremely virulent variant of hemorrhagic fever

In any case, no, I don't suppose too many of the sick and dying would be interested in movies like this. If I were going through a life-threatening illness, I'd probably just want to watch 'Back to the Future.' I can't say why.

Great stuff, but one thing stood out for me:

"Movies like these are made for the living and not for the dying so much."

Were you intentionally echoing 'Gates of Heaven' or am I mistaken?

Ebert: Yes, I was. Thank you.

I wish you had the chance to see Ian Fitzgibbon's "Death of a Superhero" at TIFF. It is superb and also touches on the themes of cancer, love, & death. Andy Serkis gives a wonderful performance as a Thanatos therapist and the lead,Thomas Brodie-Sangster is profoundly talented.

Thanks, Roger. Those of us who have been there understand the truth that you speak, and the horrors you only suggest, for both patient and caregiver. Lonely, indeed, but your words make it less so for me.

Off topic, but here goes: Did you change the star rating for "Drive" from four to three-and-a-half on your website at some point during today? I read your review this morning and swore you gave it four stars. Just making sure my mind's not playing tricks on me . . .

Ebert: An error in editing. It's real good, anyway.

The Bucket List. Not Case. :)
Can't wait to see both movies..

Ebert, I love you, but please tell me you didn't ruin, or at least strongly imply, the ending of these movies.

Roger, I think you meant 'The Bucket List' and not the 'The Bucket Case'.

Not to nitpick or anything, but I think the movie title is "The Bucket List", not "The Bucket Case". I never saw either of them.

There was a German film that played at Cannes: Stopped on Track - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1780856/ . It's quite realistic (it reminded me a lot of the last few months of my grandfather's life) and I guess you will like it. I've not seen Wit, but I guess this is in a similar vein.

I've seen 50/50 and as a person with advanced Non Small Cell Lung Cancer, now going on 2 years, I can attest to the doses of reality that infuse the movie. It is based on the screenwriter, Will Reiser's, own experience with cancer, so many things ring true.

Reiser's story, thus far, has had a happy ending, thus the movie's positive resolution is realistic within that limited context. In fact, if it had an ending where the Adam character died, I would suspect that there would be no success at the box office--rather like your reaction to "Wit," the Emma Thompsom movie. Commercially produced movies have the problem of being financially successful at the expense of artistic integrity and a connection to reality. 50/50 does a very good job of trying to reconcile these competing interests. There were points in the movie that were very sobering, and the director did not play them up or play them down--just let them speak for themselves.

As a cancer patient, I'd like to see 50/50 become popular because it might give those who have not gone through the experience, a better sense of what is involved. For those who have gone through the miasma of cancer treatment either as a patient or a caregiver, I think they would find that the humor in the movie is cathatic. I've discovered that humor is an essential ingredient of good cancer therapy.

However, I do have a few quibbles with how you've described scenes in the movie. The Anna Kendrick character is not the leader of a group of cancer patients. She gives individual counseling. The group is formed because the three characters (Joseph Gordon Levitt, Phillip Baker Hall and the other fellow) go through chemotherapy at the same time. Having sat in those same sorts of chairs for up to 5 hours at a time myself, I thought it was rather a nice conceit that friendships could form in this manner-- a bit more free form than group therapy. I also thought that Adam's growing awareness of his mother's burdens was a nice touch that didn't have to be there, but allowed his character and Angelica Huston's to grow.

And given what Adam says to his girlfriend in their final scene together I don't think that a tentative sweetness grows between them--he cuts it off rather forcefully, to forestall her half hearted, self-involved act of contrition (I hope Bryce Dallas Howard is not becoming typecast as a bitch).

Cancer is our real life horror story. It affects everyone, not just the poor or the rich, the young or the old. Movies like 50/50 are helpful in removing some of the stigma, some of the fear associated with cancer and bringing it down into a more human dimension. One that we can live with. For that, I recommend the film.

Roger -

Your blog reinforces what I always suspected about these types of movies - they are sugar coated fantasies of dying, because the reality is too horrible and mundane to ever put on screen (in the mainstream, anyway), and that any person in the same situation would not be able to do anything except pick apart the pieces of the film that are unrealistic. In the same way a doctor will point out all the faults of a medical drama (my dad does this) or an IT professional obsesses over a technical error in a film (which I do constantly), I feel it would be impossible for a person with a terminal diagnosis to enjoy a movie about dying.

My mom is in the late stages of cancer, and while one of the only things left we can do together is watch movies, I always make sure that the movie we watch is not about a person dying (especially of cancer) and has as few references to death as possible. I'm never sure if it makes a difference to her, but I think it reflects more to the fact that I simply can't deal with the reality of the situation, and I avoid anything that would force me to face it.

I really appreciate your blog and the courage it takes to put your feelings about your indescribably difficult situation into words. It has definitely helped me to work through a lot of the emotions I'm feeling, as well as understand the thought process of somebody in your situation. As a result, I feel I can be more sensitive dealing with my mother's situation.

Thanks again, and keep the twittering going.

By the way - you the movie you mentioned above with Morgan Freeman and Jack Nicholson is The Bucket *List*, not case :)

I have seen "Wit" many times. It is indeed a very powerful film. I am a physician, and I think that it should be required viewing, not only for medical students, but also for physicians in practice -- as well as the general public, to ensure that they will know what can go wrong with their treatment and to try to obtain the strength to ensure that how Ms Thompson's character was treated will not happen to them

The treatment of patients who are dying often leaves much to be desired. I experienced this early on in my practice when one of my patients who was dying of cancer was being treated with an experimental drug which had terrible side effects. She then refused further treatment saying that it was her last Summer and she did not want to spend it vomiting her guts. Her oncologist then telephoned me trying to get me to pressure her to return to his study at first because he accused her of wanting to commit suicide, and then because he "needed the numbers" for his trial and thought that I, as a physician, would understand.

It is not so much a callousness, but rather a lack of human empathy and a refusal to accept the fact that we all die sooner or later, and that it is how we die according to our own ethics that is important.

I will stop here before I get on my soap box. But, just to repeat, "Wit" is an amazing film with much to teach all of us in many ways.

Ebert: He needed the numbers. Words fail me.

Bryce Dallas Howard not only acts in "50/50" but also produced "Restless". Hopefully that's just a coincidence. If not, creepy...

This was a rather moving read, Mr. Ebert. I can't speak on anything as terrifying as cancer (I can't tell whether My having not yet dealt with that life experience or someone else's experience of it is either a blessing or a curse, but I'm certainly in the gray), But I am happy that two movies (two good looking movies, too) could touch you in such a way, and perhaps will do it to many other people, maybe even me.

By the Way, The movie you mentioned, "The Bucket Case", you actually mean "The Bucket List". Felt I should mention it. Even if it didn't leave the impact it might have tried to make, the title should still be remembered as such.

-Logan.

Do you know any good novels about or involving autumn?

As a cancer patient who is now considered "in remission," one of the first things I discovered was that I can no longer watch movies or television about cancer. An episode of "House" can send me into tears (and not just because of its severe decline in quality since the early seasons). Like you, I've decided that movies like "50/50" are for everyone else -- the caretakers, the survivors, the friends and family. These movies make it OK to say the word "cancer" in polite company. By not showing the worst parts, they cut the monster down to a manageable size. To paraphrase Steven King, now it's only a 10-foot bug. I can deal with a 10-foot bug. So even though I won't be going to see "50/50," I wish it well.

P.S. I discovered your blog shortly after my diagnosis, while I was out of work and in the middle of treatment. Your words, particularly about your cancer, were a boon. Thank you.

I haven't been through anything like your experiences, but like most people, my life has been deeply affected by cancer and I might find Wit too hard to watch. But it sounds like an important movie.

Elisabeth Kubler Ross wrote that in the U.S. we do not deal with death -- we shield ourselves from it and refuse to allow our children to know it's a part of life. I agree with her to a large extent. This might be reflected in the gentle portrayal of illness and death in the movies you described.

I suspect that most of us past a certain age have held the hand of someone we cherished as they suffered unspeakably and as they died. Yet we don't speak of it -- we shield ourselves from our own experiences and movies offer a romanticized version of illness and death. Maybe it's because, as you said, the alternative is too painful for us.

Aw jeeze, Rodge, change it back to "The Bucket Case." These people have no sense of humor at all. Nor has anyone grasped the poetry of the slip.

"The Bucket Case" was the second more-or-less hit black/white buddy movie in a Christmas season row. It still makes me grumble. Real cute it was, but that numbskull producer who "didn't see a story" in a true life adventure of an old college mate who won his race against deadly cancer again and again... well... I s'pose I'll grumble about it 'til November 19, 2038, 9:17 p.m. (See previous blog).

I'm not sure. I think I'll watch this one, but maybe put the true-life stories I know about aside to do that.

Can you IMAGINE the insensitivity of a 50 year old spoiled rich brat who cuts all communication with her dying friend of 35 years because he's got a terminal illness and she can't be troubled to deal with it? Before he dies, he packs up all the letters she's ever written him and returns them because they've now been rendered phony. She doesn't attend his funeral.

True life story, related to me by reporter Dennis Conkin of San Francisco about a mutual now-ex-friend. Mentioning Dennis' name out loud hoping for a shout-back. A fine reporter. But let's not see that movie.

Cries and Whispers. Always loved the ending of this Ingmar Bergman film. Our lives may be rushing ahead and our bodies may change, may deteriorate, but nothing can stop us from enjoying a moment of time. And to revel in that moment and to let it languish, deliciously, without letting rationalizations and realizations vanquish the delicateness of the present.

Ebert: That passage from her journal: "I am thankful for my life, which has given me so much..."

Re: Ali McGraw Syndrome. I worked in a nursing home. One lady I cared for was astonishing radiant in the day before she died. Can't explain.

When I watched "The Bucket List" in early 2008, I was instantly reminded of my two relatives. One of my uncles, who had suffered from liver cancer, was dying at that time. I was not there when he was approaching his death, but I briefly witnessed his hard daily life when I visited him with my parents. Though he was still the uncle I remembered, but he looked leaner and more tired than before, well aware of his terminal stage.
One of my aunts also suffered from cancer in the previous year. Though she was eventually cured well, it was apparently to me that her experience was not pleasant at all when I saw her in May 2007. My mother told me about her constant vomiting during the treatment. She also told me about how sad it was to my aunt to give up her beloved pet dog due to her fragile immune system ravaged by chemotherapy.
I have not had cancer, and I have only indirect knowledge about being a cancer patient, but, after observing their hard time, I could not accept well the premise of "The Bucket List", whose characters look like tagged "cancer patient" rather than struggling though their severe condition. And it was not a good movie after all; "50/50" and "Restless" may not be realistic like you said, but I can accept them if the stories they want to tell are good.

P.S.
Can we hope that you will be able to revisit "Wit" someday for your Great Movies? The time is the medicine, sometimes.

There's a great documentary on the Film Festival circuit dealing with these themes "Dying to do Letterman" Hope ya get chance to see it.

I'll check these out, thanks Roger.

I'm curious what films are made FOR the dying?

Montaigne:

"To omit fevers and pleurisies, who would ever have imagined that a duke of Brittany should be pressed to death in a crowd as that duke was at the entry of Pope Clement, my neighbor, into Lyons? Has thou not seen one of our kings killed at a tilting, and did not one of his ancestors die by collision with a hog? Aeschylus, threatened with the fall of a house, was to much purpose circumspect to avoid that danger, seeing that he was knocked on the head by a tortoise falling out of an eagle’s talons in the air. Another was choked with a grape-stone; an emperor killed with the scratch of a comb in combing his head. Aemilius Lepidus with a stumble at his own threshold, and Aufidius with a jostle against the door as he entered the council-chamber. And betwixt the very thighs of women, Cornelius Gallus the praetor; Tigillinus, captain of the watch at Rome; Ludovico, son of Guidone di Gonzaga, Captain of Mantua; and (of worse example) Speusippus, a Platonic philosopher, and one of our Popes. The poor judge Bebius gave adjournment in a case for eight days; but he himself, meanwhile, was condemned by death, and his own stay of life expired. Whilst Caius Julius, the physician, was anointing the eyes of a patient, death closed his own; and, if I may bring in an example of my own blood, a brother of mine, Captain St. Martin, a young man, three-and-twenty years old, who had already given sufficient testimony of his valor, playing a match at tennis, received a blow of a ball a little above his right ear, which, as it gave no manner of sign of wound or contusion, he took no notice of it, nor so much as sat down to repose himself, but, nevertheless, died within five or six hours after of an apoplexy occasioned by that blow....

But what? Young and old die upon the same terms; no one departs out of life otherwise than if he had but just before entered into it; neither is any man so old and decrepit, who, having heard of Methuselah, does not think he has yet twenty years good to come. Fool that thou art! who has assured unto thee the term of life? Thou dependest upon physicians’ tales: rather consult effects and experience. According to the common course of things, ’tis long since that thou hast lived by extraordinary favor; thou hast already outlived the ordinary term of life. And that it is so, reckon up thy acquaintance, how many more have died before they arrived at thy age than have attained unto it; and of those who have ennobled their lives by their renown, take but an account, and I dare lay a wager thou wilt find more who have died before than after five-and-thirty years of age. It is full both of reason and piety, too, to take example by the humanity of Jesus Christ Himself; now, He ended His life at three-and-thirty years. The greatest man, that was no more than a man, Alexander, died also at the same age. How many several ways has death to surprise us?....

Our very religion itself has no surer human foundation than the contempt of death. Not only the argument of reason invites us to it—for why should we fear to lose a thing, which being lost, cannot be lamented?—but, also, seeing we are threatened by so many sorts of death, is it not infinitely worse eternally to fear them all, than once to undergo one of them? And what matters it, when it shall happen, since it is inevitable? To him that told Socrates, “The thirty tyrants have sentenced thee to death;” “And nature them,” said he. What a ridiculous thing it is to trouble ourselves about taking the only step that is to deliver us from all trouble! As our birth brought us the birth of all things, so in our death is the death of all things included. And therefore to lament that we shall not be alive a hundred years hence, is the same folly as to be sorry we were not alive a hundred years ago....

Ebert: Thank you for this.

Of course, any work of art (movie, play, book) is always perceived through the lens of our experience, and also our present.
I was reading something in Salon, and it was a piece about a young mom of 6 who was a Playboy bunny, and the drones went on about how a 26-y.o. couldn't be hot enough. Or why wasn't she more responsible?
This was a non-fiction account, but my point remains that the filters alter our reality in whatever we're experiencing, something your review vividly remind us of.

No work of fiction can possibly be realistic or 'lifelike'. Every movie is a fantasy. For example, hours pass like seconds.

There's no place like...OZ!

"The Bucket List", I think, was a coded movie in the vein of "The Children's Hour". It was interesting purely on a subtextual level. Although he doesn't die, the film that gives me chills just thinking about it, is George Miller's "Lorenzo's Oil". Not for one second does this film seem like it belongs on the Lifetime network, even though the subject matter cries "television".

"Movies like these are made for the living and not for the dying so much."

So, you ar saying, they dying are not amoung the living.

It's unique, I give you that.

Ebert: Should have written, "to be SEEN by the healthy and not for the dying so much."

@ S M Rana

That was fantastic. Counterpoint (also not for the dying, so much):

http://www.poemhunter.com/best-poems/philip-larkin/aubade/

....but as to bodily health, no man can furnish out more profitable experience than I, who present it pure, and no way corrupted and changed by art or opinion.....added that it was hard if a man of sense, having a care to his exercise and diet, did not better know than any physician what was good or ill for him. And physic itself professes always to have experience for the test of its operations: so Plato had reason to say that, to be a right physician, it would be necessary that he who would become such, should first himself have passed through all the diseases he pretends to cure, and through all the accidents and circumstances whereof he is to judge. 'Tis but reason they should get the pox, if they will know how to cure it; for my part, I should put myself into such hands; the others but guide us, like him who paints seas and rocks and ports sitting at table, and there makes the model of a ship sailing in all security; but put him to the work itself, he knows not at which end to begin. They make such a description of our maladies as a town crier does of a lost horse or dog--such a color, such a height, such an ear--but bring it to him and he knows it not, for all that. If physic should one day give me some good and visible relief, then truly I will cry out in good earnest:..

I have picked up charity boys to serve me: who soon after have quitted both my kitchen and livery, only that they might return to their former course of life; and I found one afterwards, picking mussels out of the sewer for his dinner, whom I could neither by entreaties nor threats reclaim from the sweetness he found in indigence. Beggars have their magnificences and delights, as well as the rich, and, tis said, their dignities and polities....

...and, without a force upon myself, cannot sleep in the daytime, nor eat between meals, nor breakfast, nor go to bed, without a great interval betwixt eating and sleeping,--[Gastroesophogeal Reflux. D.W.]--as of three hours after supper; nor have intercourse but before I sleep, nor do it standing; nor endure my own sweat; nor quench my thirst either with pure water or pure wine; nor keep my head long bare, nor cut my hair after dinner; and I should be as uneasy without my gloves as without my shirt, or without washing when I rise from table or out of my bed; and I could not lie without a canopy and curtains, as if they were essential things. I could dine without a tablecloth, but without a clean napkin, after the German fashion, very incommodiously; I foul them more than the Germans or Italians do, and make but little use either of spoon or fork. I complain that they did not keep up the fashion, begun after the example of kings, to change our napkin at every service, as they do our plate. We are told of that laborious soldier Marius that, growing old, he became nice in his drink, and never drank but out of a particular cup of his own I, in like manner, have suffered myself to fancy a certain form of glasses, and not willingly to drink in common glasses, no more than from a strange common hand: all metal offends me in comparison of a clear and transparent matter: let my eyes taste, too, according to their capacity. I owe several other such niceties to custom. Nature has also, on the other side, helped me to some of hers: as not to be able to endure more than two full meals in one day, without overcharging my stomach, nor a total abstinence from one of those meals without filling myself with wind, drying up my mouth, and dulling my appetite;....

Both kings and philosophers shit, and ladies too; public lives are bound to ceremony; mine, that is obscure and private, enjoys all natural dispensation; soldier and Gascon are also qualities a little subject to indiscretion; wherefore I shall say of this act of relieving nature, that it is desirable to refer it to certain prescribed and nocturnal hours, and compel one's self to this by custom, as I have done; but not to subject one's self, as I have done in my declining years, to a particular convenience of place and seat for that purpose, and make it troublesome
by long sitting; and yet, in the fouler offices, is it not in some measure excusable to require more care and cleanliness?

"Naturt homo mundum et elegans animal est."

["Man is by nature a clean and delicate creature."--Seneca, Ep., 92.]

Of all the actions of nature, I am the most impatient of being
interrupted in that.

That was from "On Experience" the last of his essays in the 1200 page complete collection

Wasn't it Regina King (or am I mistaken?) who at the end of "Wit" makes that wonderful gesture--arms apart, palms out--clearing space to hold Emma Thompson's dignity?

If it wasn't King I apologize to whoever it was. That character and that marvelous gesture helped make that movie's ending so powerful.

"The Eye of the Storm" seems somewhat similarly themed and looks good to me. Just caught a pix of the lovely Charlotte Rampling from TIFF. Roger noted in his 1971 review of "Under the Sand" her maturation from beautiful yet brave("The Night Porter") ingenue into an actress capable of inordinate subtlety and power. During the ensuing decade, this observation has been confirmed many times over.

A life long fan of Ms. Rampling...

Mr. Ebert,
Just when I think you can't do better, you do. I really appreciate your thoughts and eloquence on life, movies, and death.

I have had my share of crap, skin cancer, open wounds on my head for months, radiation. And going on 4 years cancer free.

Each of us deals with life and death differently, but for you to be so open, and communicate your thoughts so well, helps us all.

Personally I have a hard time watching movies about death, seems too close to home. But you make me realize that I need to think about this.

And I salute your lovely wife for helping. My wife too, is a saint. Anyone that has to be a caregiver knows that it is just as hard as the person getting the care.

Keep on enjoying movies and keep letting us know what you think.
Your admiring fan
Gary

Personally, I'm just happy that Roger managed to type an entire article related to death without once beating us over the head with his relentless obsession with god and religion. No offense Roger, but holy shit your fixation on "god" is getting annoying.

Roger,
Have you ever read 'The Friend of Death' by Alarcon?

http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/50/alarcon.png

Read it when I was diagnosted with a colitis.

Excellent observations. As always, thank you for sharing. Cancer is a disease that truly frightens me if I let myself think about it.

I was fortunate enough to catch a live production of Wit a number of years ago. It was a local production near my college, but starred a highly skilled actress whose name, unfortunately, escapes me.

Anyway, this posting reminded me of this other blog posting I happened to read just yesterday about a young woman who saved her gmail chats with her fiance, who passed away at an all too young age from melanoma. This moving account speaks to what Mr. Ebert says these movies do not show, the gruesome parts of the illness and treatment and the toll they take on those closest.

http://www.good.is/post/chat-history/

Warning: There is some graphic language and it is, well, a bit sad. But well worth reading anyway.

Mr Ebert,

I am a physician with stage 4 breast cancer. I have survived because I knew that my cancer started as a fungal infection and I obtained treatment for the infection in addition to the standard cancer treatments.

I am certain your salivary gland tumor started as an infection. I strongly recommend that you use an infrared sauna daily - it kills the underlying infection in your tissues. I also recommend Chinese medicine - herbs and acupuncture. The Chinese have 10,000 herbs in their formulary and can get results Western medicine can only dream of, without side effects. Glutathione is the body's main antioxidant and neutralizes the mycotoxins released by fungi that kill white blood cells. I see a toxicologist who prescribes it as a nebulizer, nasal drops and a liquid to take orally. It can also be given intravenously.

The point is to strengthen the body's defenses against the disease, not destroy the immune system with steroids, chemo and the like.

I also use an oxygen concentrator to breathe 60-90% oxygen while I read in the evenings to beef up my immune system and improve the health of all my innards - it helps me sleep like a rock.

You look great - you have fabulous cheek bones and you look joyous. I've been a big fan of yours since the 80s, when I was in the Univ of Chicago med school. I read your reviews daily - they're always spot on.

You can keep your disease at bay - I did it and you can, too.

I wish you a long and joyous life.

Julia White

Your observations and experiences cannot be argued.
I have seen both sides, the patient and the medic, and was both and at once intrigued and amazed at the no-bullshit attitudes that surfaced.

I met a nurse who was also a poet a few years ago and heard her read some very poignant and painful poems about her experiences dealing with burn victims and other dying patients. I asked her in passing what she thought about TV shows such as "ER," and she thought that they all prettied things up to make them palatable as entertainment. I imagine that's inevitable.

Here's a seven-minute video documentary that a young musician made a few years ago about his mother's decline and death from lung cancer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_8BerrJg0M

It lacks any of the artifice that makes us willing to watch Hollywood movies about dying people. In my view, that makes it more poignant and informative than many feature-length films movies which get praised as "realistic" and "honest." For that rason, I don't think many people would urge their friends to watch it. I guess this illustrates Roger's point that "Movies can be so real we look away." Small wonder, then, that filmmakers often idealize the dying.

Excellent piece. I found that soon after my uncle died of cancer, I had no patience with a viewing of Dark Victory on TCM, which is sort of the original entry in the Ali MacGraw Disease canon. I usually don't have issue with "realism" in movies, but in this case it just seemed too absurd that the film was asking us to shed tears over a "dying" woman who showed no physical signs of dying from a tumor (granted, I don't think the character is being treated with any medicine with side effects in the film, but wouldn't there be some sort of decline other than sweatiness?). Remembering my uncle, who ended up in the last month of his life looking like some kind of balloon man, this just seemed beyond ridiculous.

I think for these movies to work, at least for me, they should stop a few weeks into the illness. Leave to our imagination what happens once major symptoms and treatment begin, if you're not willing to show it. Like you, I can see why the fantasy aspect appeals but (and perhaps because as someone looking in, rather than experiencing the disease directly or even consistently as I lived away from home and only saw him a few times between diagnosis and passing away) the lingering shock of what I saw remains incompatible with how it's conveyed onscreen (and it's the fake courage I can't stand, the swelling of the music and shakiness of the camera as if we're really being shown something devastating). Then again, don't know how well I could stomach a movie that really faces up to the physical side of dying either. Might be no-win.

Beautiful. Thank you, Roger. For your great work and love of movies and life.

Have not seen "50/50" as yet and am not sure when it will hit the Greece film circuit if at all.

I did see "The Bucket List" when it came out but felt it was not a very strong film. I guess I expected something that would help me deal with the past loses of friends and family and how to deal with my own mortality. Maybe "50/50" will bridge that gap.

Having had a medical problem/operation every year over the last three years certainly has made this subject matter become more pointed for me.

This month I got diagnosed with basal cell carcinoma of the nose, nothing life threatening according to the doctor, but she said this type of skin cancer of the nose, eyes or ears can be a problem down the road. I jumped on this an am off to the plastic surgeon to get this taken care of. Doctor speak scares me at times.

Take care,

Mike
Amaliada Greece

In the comments in the recent animal blog, Roger wrote "Pete's Apartment" instead of "Joe's Apartment." Take note that these are bad movies, which his mind doesn't consider memorable (nor mine, in the case of bad movies). I'm waiting for "A Good Home-Cookin' Orgy", "Juice Bigelow", "The Last Airbuzzer."

As a cancer survivor, and someone who lost a love one quickly and tragically, I recommend the Australian film Burning Man for its portrayals of both cancer treatment and death. This was a raw and honest film that shows that it sucks for everyone. There are no 'life lessons'. Just living, and life going on - without the movie smacking you in the face or lecturing the viewer about it.

"We need films like this. They help us deal with life, not death."

Five great films on the topic of life, through the prism of death...

Dealing with someone else's...
Maboroshi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yg19kxH0nco

Dealing with your own...
The Barbarian Invasions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exNGZTeEGbc

The ritual after it...
Departures
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtdENmR6jKw

A quest for meaning, in the time you have left...
Ikiru
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mLrLHDdXHI

Deciding, and accepting that someone is deciding, to choose it...
Goodbye Solo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5IGC59Q9y8

I love all these films.

I wrote this comment in Jim's blog but I wanted to share it here..about how I made myself an active viewer of movies...which kind of became sci-fi a world of hidden cameras.and I still think I think this way in the back of my mind.......Here's the comment (which is about why he thought the Dark Knight had confusing editing and kind of my response to it)....

Basically, as I was saying about the fight scene earlier, let me kind of get into what I think is inside Nolan's head here.

I think he's trying to give us some nice "comic book" shots (or I guess what you'd call 2-d), but I think he's trying to give it to us too fast with all the fast-editing.

So, it's like what you said in the video where you said "Well, this is just a comic book movie, so why do we have to take it so seriously", and that's kind of what I wanted to dwell on; rather than thinking of it as a comic book Movie, just think of the shots as "comic book shots." When you think of it in those terms, where you can kind of sit there and think of the shots and kind of ponder them, then everything kind of comes together. So, I guess what I'm saying is, the movie works as a comic book, which I suppose is all it kind of attempted to be. Where the movie part comes in, it seems, Nolan thinks, is to just cut all this comic book stuff together really fast, because...as I said, in this chaos cinema world, fast cutting automatically equals excitement. So, it's like he got a comic book and just thought "just edit all this stuff really fast and that should do it" (also, it seems, with chaos cinema, they are trying to use cuts to make things seem faster than they are...skipping whole movements etc.). But I guess the mistake is that with comic books you get to ponder all these kind of shots that might cause confusion for some and kind of appreciate them as kind of artistic still shots, whereas with a movie, or with film grammar, it's about motion.

About the 2 and 3 cop cars thing, it does seem like that would be a mistake or something, but, there's something I used to do when I was younger and thinking about movies, and that is, for every edit, I would kind of imagine a whole story in my head how it got from one edit to another. So, in the case with the 3 cop cars, where it turns from 2 to 3, really, in that space, another car could have maybe been waiting up there, or just got called...a lot of things, or a whole other story, as I'd imagined it when I was younger, takes place between one cut and another. I guess that was a way to keep myself engaged with the movie as an active viewer. Every cut I'd imagine a whole story just took place in an instant that we didn't see. Like I might even notice a mistake, and think, "Well, of course, a whole story just took place in that cut." Other things I'd imagine (and still think would be interesting as a way to shoot a movie) is that I'd imagine that, instead of a cut, I'd imagine that there were hidden cameras and would imagine that a cool way to shoot a movie would be to have all these hidden cameras everywhere and do some kind of virtuoso thing, like with Errol Morris' cam he invented for interviews...the camera is out of sight...yet filming...so, I thought I was thinking it would be cool to shoot a movie where the camera is hidden behind a bathroom tile etc. or actually another thing I thought was it would be cool to have tens or cameras all kind of hidden in bathroom tile and you could switch around to different ones, kind of like "Psycho" but in real time or something. Actually, this is kind of how some filmmakers, like Altman, do shoot movies, with multiple cameras.

So, I guess on thinking of the movie like that, how I'd view them as a teen (and maybe still do somewhere in the back of my head) it does make sense...when you think that, really, anything is possible from one cut to another. I mean, the thing that bothers me though is with the fight scenes, where he is cutting and is trying to make them look faster than they are. Clearly, there's no "whole other story" from one cut to another there; it's all right there...and it's trying to make them look faster. Other parts, I think you can kind of view them in this comic book way, or as "comic book shots" that are, like a comic book, meant to be appreciated for their aesthetic value as a still shot rather than as kind of motion etc.

So, I guess what I'm saying is, he's kind of shot a comic book and maybe not a comic book movie, and somewhere in the back of my mind, or the way I looked at movies as a teen, this all seems to be acceptable (except the fighting).

So, perhaps, there are other movie goers who actually do watch it in those terms, where every cut is a whole story that we just missed and have to piece together ourselves...but for the most part, I think maybe you are right and they weren't thinking that and probably not really watching. But I think it is possible that they just because they didn't kind of think these same things that other people familiar with film grammar think that they weren't watching. It's possible that they were watching the movie in their head: or at least I do that....because every edit is a whole story that we didn't see.

Lingering, imminent movies have almost invariably focused primarily on the dying individual. As a change of pace, perhaps, a future movie should focus primarily on the caretaker and executor of the dying. The movie could begin with the death of the "cared-for", then follow the subsequent events the loving caretaker must endure to prepare that person for the final journey. The movie could examine the wake, funeral, and dinner reception rituals and how the caretaker handles them. Then it could examine the genuine sympathizers and Job's comforters that attend the funeral, and how the caretaker handles them. Afterwards the movie can explore all the numerous bureaucratic and administrative chores the caretaker/executor must perform to settle the deceased's affairs (like duplicating death certificates, executing the will (if any), filling out final tax forms, cancelling subscriptions). I believe this would make a fascinating documentary.

"Pity the living. Envy the dead" - Mark Twain (I believe)

Amen

Adding onto last comment, since I think I forgot, I'd also imagine that there were multiple cameras being shot simultaneously and that the DPs were like the ninja who would avoid being shot by the other cameras. So, you know how in a movie it will be shooting a scene and then switch to a different angle to where, if there really were multiple cameras shooting simultaneously, you'd be able to see the other camera/camera guy? So, I'd imagine that they must have been very agile and would avoid being seen when cutting to another camera, rather than it being the same camera shooting it from a different angle.

and I think that would be a cool way to shoot a movie...where there were multiple cameras shooting simultaneously, choreographed in a way to where the other cameras just miss shooting the other cameras and sometimes perhaps by the other camera guys have to kind of maybe jump out of view of other cameras.

So, it would basically be like any other movie, except it really would be multiple cameras shooting rather than cutting and shooting from a different angle with the same camera.

Speaking of imminent death,

Do you think Gaddafi is reflecting on life's follies now? Or are psychopaths incapable of that? Surely murderers and rapist should be neutered to thin out the psychopath gene? But then again, weren't psychopaths responsible for the survival of the human race when we were thrashing it out in the wild?

I'll go lie down now.

Count von Ebert,

Speaking of sanguisages, why am I repeatedly 'forbidden' access to the site on vampire hunting kits mentioned in your tweet today. You obviously got in. Do you know something we don't?

Ebert: Huh?

Actually, I think just about all movies are made for the living. The trouble with the dying as a target audience is that much as they need entertainment, they’re just not going to buy a lot of popcorn. I can only think of two categories of people who have ever made up the core audiences of movies about them – sexual deviants and yakuza (at least back in the old days when Japanese gangster movies were shown mostly in yakuza-owned theaters). When I meet someone and find out that they are a cook or chef, my first reaction has never been to ask “what did you think of The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover,” though I’m the kind of guy that, now that I thought of it, I probably will.

Regarding films about dying made for the living, there is a superb HBO film directed by Mike Nichols, starring Emma Thompson, called Wit.

It is about an English professor with metastatic Stage IV ovarian cancer.

From Wiki: "Vivian dies at the end of the film, with her voiceover reciting "death be not proud"."

As someone battling cancer, the film spoke to me.

One more off-topic....I'm going to re-post what I said on Facebook today to my gay cousin when he was talking about Glee...

"Jane Lynch has the snappy delivery of the pre-method acting of the 1940's.....that means i like her."

I do wonder if these two films gloss over cancer, and if so, how and why? Cancer is fairly common, and I would imagine that some people going through such an ordeal would appreciate seeing their experience reflected in film. More 'Wit' style films perhaps. And what about the families of cancer patients? Ebert mentioned what his wife had to go through. I would like to see a film about cancer from the spouse's point of view.

I feel the psychic punch of "Wit" even from this echo of long ago having seen it. What a movie. What a performance.

Yesterday I finished watching "Biutiful", so I'll add this to the discussion since I kept referring back to it, fresh in my memory, remembering how it dealt with cancer and death (for the living and occaisionally also for the dead). While I watched, I was aware the film was made to look dirty and hopeless. How Javier Bardem looked unkempt but still beautiful despite his character's bouts with pain, one episode of vomiting and two of peeing blood.

For me, the truist horror of death comes as you realize Uxbal's children will have no one else after their Daddy dies and time is running so, so short.

I'm scared to watch Farrah Fawcett's documentary now. Will it make me more afraid of dying than i already am? Are there things we shouldn't know? Are we glad we're not the ones leaving? Should we be as obliviously unaware of death as possible? Should I watch Farrah Fawcetts documentary. Do I owe it to her. Would I be better off not seeing/knowing.

I'm 27 now. My mother has a collapsed lung (most likely she has the C word, but I don't think she wants to tell me).. My father's bp is truly awful. I get depressed....but it's me being selfish. I'm just afraid of losing them. We all become orphans. And movies like the ones you mention can possibly help people get off their pitty-pots and truly appreciate NOW. I know I need to...

Thanks you for sharing your story. I've never seen the movie, but Life is Beautiful.

P.S.
LOVE is the answer.

So right about Nichols' WIT. What an honest and brutal portrait about Cancer in the final stages and the heroic face we first put on and to the private war fought with the disease and the one in ourselves.

Your blog entry, I know, refers to movies about terminal illness, not accidental death, but I just wanted to share with you my insight about "Before Sunset", having watched both that and its equally brilliant predecessor "Before Sunrise", in order for Lone Scherfig's "One Day" to have someone to talk to. I don't know how I missed this before, but it just occurred to me that Celine lied about her grandmother dying on their appointed date in December. The Frenchwoman all but admits this when she tells Jessie, "When you're young, you just believe they'll be many people whom you'll connect with," and then her face grows grim, adding that "later in life you realize it only happens a few times." During her waltz, she sings, "It was for you just a one-night stand," but what she really means is that it was for "her" just a one night stand. Jessie and Emma(Anne Hathaway) are so emotionally messed up from that one perfect day, they both had to write a book about it.

um, i watched philadelphia. . .. Caught it at a packed house at the theater. It was the movie for the hip to watch apparently. . Since it's not a Sci Fi movie, odd for me to have seen it like that. Was a dates pick. . I was thinking. . i'm Ok with anything playing. . except philadelphia. . but that was the pick. .

um. . i didn't like it. . one part was funny for me though. . in a scene a bigoted actor in said something 'anti-women' and the whole movie audience recoiled in shock, sorry for the beating this sap was going to get, I guess. I thought the audience reaction was so funny. . . I guess my background is being kind of conservative and interested in the men's movement. I did like the part in the movie where Tom Hanks is like in Hell or something, the screen is all red, or flaming. . i actually cried during that part, lol. I really did. Two great parts but the movie sucked.

I don't really remember focusing so much on the dying but on the politics of the case/movie. . I remember an old one with Peter Faulk, the guy who plays Columbo. .

Just in case you weren't asking Roger. . or meant that in a general sense. . it makes sense you weren't asking Roger, actually.

>Follow up to Aug. 9 'Hitchcock Cameos' post on "The White Shadow" (1923)

I still contend that is young Hitchcock in poker game shot taken from above movie. It has now been screened in Hollywood. I read no confirmation. Am I in error?

catholic.org/ae/movies/review.php?id=32332

My brother Brian's Eisner-winning graphic novel MOM'S CANCER was unflinching. He based it on our family's experience of losing our mom to lung cancer. But like Maus, it had the ability to be brutally truthful because the comic medium allowed the voyeur a step back from reality. I think the visuals of realistic death process movies and documentaries cause too much pain in the average viewer; they have to shut down to protect themselves (I am also a fan of The Barbarian Invasions, but I would never want to watch it again now having been a caregiver.).

Caregiving is fantastically brutal on the psyche. It's wonderful that you recognize the stress your wife went through. The emotional daily toll of trying to not make a mistake that kills your loved one, laying beside them night after night checking to see if they are still breathing...It's scarier than any horror movie, the genre I turned to for comfort hoping to feel anything but overwhelming depression and loneliness.

I don't know who realistic death process movies would be made for. Like many of the terminally ill, my mom longed for a good laugh. Call it the Sullivan's Travel's syndrome. It was my one real task: to bring her distracting entertainment. The problem is I couldn't find many funny comedies. There are maybe two new ones a year, and she'd already seen them. At least seven of my desperate trips to the video store resulted in us watching mislabeled comedies that were actually cancer stories in disguise (I will never forgive those bastard Hollywood marketing teams). I finally switched to fluffy romances and accidentally brought home Sweet November. Even reading Mom the usually reliable Dave Sedaris essays led me to that day in the hospital where the chapter I read was about Dave being diagnosed with cancer...and I pretended my throat was sore so I could stop before she figured it out. But she knew. Barbara was way too smart for me to fool, even with a brain tumor.

Perhaps realistic death process movies are like bad movies...they're made for the artists' process, but really shouldn't ever be consumed by anyone. True Story: It was while watching the hideous remake The Time Machine that Mom had her first TIA mini stroke that led to her cancer diagnosis. Scared the crap out of me. I still can't hear Guy Pearce's voice. Mom used to joke that the stroke was less painful than the movie. That's the kind of dame she was.

I would be remiss if I didn't say you brought her great entertainment for many years, and she admired you. For her, you were up there with Christopher Reeve as a decent human being and a brave cancer warrior. For the record, she died cancer-free surrounded by a half-dozen loved ones in a peaceful hospital room...and the horrible things only my sister and I witnessed her suffer the 18 hours before that idyllic experience we will take to our own graves. Not every mystery of life is meant to be shared, or captured on celluloid.

It's not only the dying that are idealized in movies. (Almost) all movies idealize (almost) everyone and everything. Romances are more romantic than real life. Comedies are funnier. Action movies are never actually plausible. And of course, almost everyone in every movie is far better than average looking. It's refreshing to see a movie show some degree more realism than most (think (500) Days of Summer vs. your average rom-com), but most of the time we don't really want to see movies that are 100% realistic.

As cancer survivor, I have no objection to films that gloss over the most unpleasant details of illness and treatment. I don't want to watch that. I've lived it. I see movies to be entertained.
I probably won't be seeing 50/50, because it would still be too painful. I did however very much enjoy reading your review.

Just saw 50/50 today. I think your review and your blog article are spot on. Maybe a little more praise for Anna Kendrick, who I thought was the best thing in the film.

I appreciate your comments about the realities of cancer. While I can't relate totally, I did have a sudden heart attack last year, so I understand some of your points better than some. Especially true is you find out what kind of person you're married to.

A very moving film.

BTW, I'm halfway through Life Itself, and am also enjoying it. I went to CU in Boulder back in the early '70s, and lived right around the corner from Daddy Bruce's. Was amazed last summer to find that it's still there, unchanged.

These movies are certainly not for the dying, nor are they for those companioning the dying.

I made the mistake of seeing "Saw" shortly after my father's death of esophageal cancer, and while other's guffawed at Cary Elwes' performance, I found ludicrous the idea of (spoiler alert) someone terminally ill going to all that trouble. Feeding tubes, nausea and exhaustion would preclude even the necessary trips to the hardware store for such contraptions, let alone... well, you see my point.

Perhaps the reason that there are not more great works about the dying is that if people recover sufficiently to go on to create a movie, the experience that sticks is basking in the miraculous glow of a life saved, rather than a life nearly lost. And while death is inevitable for all of us (sooner or later), it's rarely allowed as the expected arc for the protagonist. Films tell us that "heroes" die from explosions and gun shot wounds (or preferably leap out of the way at the last minute to survive for a sequel), heroes in film do not die from an all-too-common disease after months or years of sludging through treatment, surgeries, hanging on for one more day with your loved ones.

While not warm and fuzzy, I found "The Savages" to be most accurate in depicting the fatiguing protectiveness of caring for the ill. The scene where Laura Linney snatches a pillow from an old woman reminded me of wandering up and down the halls of the hospital, peeking into offices, desperately looking for a fan to "borrow" for my uncomfortable loved one.

Talking about films not for the dying so much. Do you remember the Robin Williams film What Dreams May Come? I just finished watching it, and I think with a little editing of the ending of the film, it would be perfect. Instead of the "obligatory happy ending" as you called it in your review, why not just cut from the hell scene at the end, where Robin Williams sacrifices himself to be with his wife, to the scene where the two little kids meet each other on the river after their sailboats collide. The audience would not necessarily have the saccharine sweet ending, but the assumption would be that Williams and his wife were reincarnated to meet each other once again on earth as they met before. That ending would have been perfect. Don't you think?