In Defense of Dan Fogelman’s “Life Itself”: It’s Fine, OK?

I went to see “Life Itself” with a skeptical yet optimistic awareness. The reviews weren’t great; it had a nine percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes (now 13 percent). I’m not an idealist, but I had some faith in writer-director Dan Fogelman -- he’s behind “This is Us,” the Emmy-dominating show that tugs at heartstrings you didn’t even know you had, and 2011’s “Crazy Stupid Love.” You can’t deny that the guy knows his way around a script.

And I still have faith! Sure, “Life Itself” isn’t the next “This Is Us,” though it’s tried its hardest to be, but I don’t think it was as complete a failure as the critics are citing.

The film is structured around a five-part narrative that weaves its storylines and generations together; this was no surprise. Though the trailer didn’t reveal much, it did make it pretty obvious that we were getting a parallel narrative with multiple protagonists. Which, to some reviewers, was part of the problem.

The theme of the movie is the unreliable narrator, a plot device that we’re hit in the face with when one of those protagonists describes it as the premise of her college thesis. So, what better way to drive home that theme than to use, you know, multiple narrators. The point ends up being that the real unreliable narrator is life itself -- get it?

Reviewers didn’t get it. Or didn't want to get it.

In defense of his film, Fogelman cited far-reaching problems within entertainment criticism as a whole.

“There's a disconnect between something that is happening between our primarily white male critics who don't like anything that has any emotion,” he said in an interview with tooFab.

He’s not wrong -- a study from this past June that considered nearly 20,000 film reviews revealed that just shy of 78 percent of published critics were male. Fogelman even asserted that despite the success of “This Is Us” -- it has three Emmys so far -- he still hears big-time television critics mocking the show.

“And it's concerning, because it is important, it tells people what to go see. I don't feel that often now our pop and film critics are speaking for a sophisticated audience anymore,” he continued.

Fogelman uses “life itself” to justify the inordinate amount of calamity that befalls his characters in the film. When tragedy strikes, the film argues, when life itself happens, there’s still a light at the end of the tunnel. In his defense, this is a sensible theme -- viewers just got way too much of it.

And that’s where the film lost the critics. Rather than look past the misfortune that plagues the movie like a pandemic to get to the (I think) fairly thought-provoking motif, commentators are saying that Fogelman tried too hard to get his point across and oversaturated the film with beat-you-over-the-head emotional turmoil, “manipulating the characters like a bunch of very depressing Sims,” as the LA Times put it.

Part of that comes from the way Fogelman packed so much story into barely enough scenes, but still left us feeling like we didn’t get much. He gave the characters little time to evolve, and the audience has to make snap judgments as to whether they’re supposed to like or despise them. As a result, viewers aren’t sure whether they’re sad or not, they just know they’re supposed to be.

But, guys -- what did you expect from a Fogelman film? When “This Is Us” first came out, I was sure I was going to hate it. How could a show so sad, so sentimental, feel so genuine? Maybe the inconsistency in “Life Itself” is the restraint of the 120-minute film. With a primetime drama, Fogelman can flush out his characters -- and continues to do so -- creating a bigger picture, more robust characters and an overall better experience.

I mean, yes, the film was predictable; scenes played out for longer than I’d have liked. But in the end, Fogelman did what Fogelman does -- made a melancholy story with (he thought) a greater purpose. And it wasn’t that bad.

In Defense of Dan Fogelman’s “Life Itself”: It’s Not “This Is Us,” but It’s Fine

You May Also Like