Choose another documentary from the list below (one you haven't seen), watch it and post a brief overview and critique of it here (i.e., what's it about? how was it structured? what approach or combination of approaches was used in its making? what did you like/not like about it? why?). The more specific you are, the better.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Documentaries galore! (part 2)
Choose another documentary from the list below (one you haven't seen), watch it and post a brief overview and critique of it here (i.e., what's it about? how was it structured? what approach or combination of approaches was used in its making? what did you like/not like about it? why?). The more specific you are, the better.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
“The best seller in the world is the bible for one reason: It’s the greatest piece of literature of all time.
Surprisingly enough, the book does not sell itself, but rather requires salesmen all over the country to get the word of God into peoples home sand under their coffee tables. In the Maysles 1968 film Salesmen we see into the lives of four of these people “chosen,” as one says to sell the bible door to door. On the road, trying to make it one sale at a time.
Salesmen is a real life Glengarry Glenross. At times the banter seems scripted, witty, and interesting. At times the camera lingers looking for something to happen, an awkward moment, a lead gone dry. The conflicts, the competition, the rejection are all real, all Cinema direct as the Maysles brothers put it.
Cinema direct to these filmmakers means no guiding voiceover, no interviews, and certainly no director involvement within the film. With such objectivism the images, the characters lend themselves to a narrative style, with individual obstacles and flaws. The rabbit, the badger, the bull, the gipper, are hard to imagine as real people after viewing this film.
And while they are still real people there is a camera, which denies any objectivity no matter how thorough an attempt. The Albert Maysles (camera operator) lingers on eyes, hands, fidgets. He uses slow zooms as punctuation, and lingers to evoke emotion. These are not objective choices, and yet he comes very close to painting an objective world of these salesmen.
Moral gray area or not, these men are hard-working men, stressed men, rejected one thousand times over, and at the end of the day to tired to do anything but sit with worried faces and smoke cigarettes. There is not a satisfying narrative ending worth ten dollars, just another small cross section of American life.
"The Weather Underground" overall was extremly interesting and engaging. It was about a group (the Weathermen, later known as the Weather Underground) of left-wing radicals during the vietnam war era. They broke off from the Students for a Democratic Society, an anti-war movement during the same time. Later the Weathermen were forced to go underground. Once underground, they bombed a large number of buildings in protest of current events.
The film was mainly comprised of current interviews with the previous members of the Weathermen. There was also a large ammount of archival footage of everything from rallies, to news stories, to a very small ammount of the Weathermen once underground, to their arrests. There was a narration which was sparce and only when absolutley needed. There were also some readings of letters that the Weathermen wrote to the media and others.
The film essentially followed the Weathermen from their formation through when they went under ground and eventually turned themselves in to where they are today.
The main part of the film that I enjoyed was the story. There was a distinct plotline and you were always wondering "what happened next?" There was nothing "fancy" and by that I mean, there were no visual metaphors, or modified voices with faces blocked out. The approach was very "head on". It showed how excited the Weathermen were about what they were doing but at the same time did not make them seem heroic. The film showed that through ought much of their time, they were not entirely sure what they were doing. It adresses the potential problems with an all-student revolution. The one issue I did have with it was that while they did show what happened to most of those being interviewed, some we never knew what happened to them.
The second documentary I chose was "The War Tapes," which was shot (almost entirely) by a number of National Guardsmen from the same unit, Charlie Company. The story went back and forth between three soldiers' cameras, and some interviews with their loved ones at home: a wife and two children, a girlfriend, and a mother. The footage shot by the three men was narrated by themselves, most of it I think overlaid with self-reflecting interviews and journal entries they conducted on their own.
The film was surprisingly short especially considering its subject matter (only an hour and a half from the 800+ hours shot). It was really powerful to see the war from the inside with the POV of the men (and women) who are doing the really dirty work. It was truly heartbreaking, it was gruesome, honest, and real. I didn't feel like it had a political agenda or like it took a side, and I appreciated that. Actually, it portrayed the war for what it is: controversial and confusing. I learned from watching special feature interviews with the soldiers/cameramen that they had received a positive reaction from their audience despite politics and views on the war, and about a 50/50 reaction from their unit (originally the film was supposed to be about the entire Charlie Company but was cut down to follow three men on a more personal level).
Besides allowing the public an inside view of the war, I think one of the most positive outcomes of the film is for the veterans who have returned home and can't express in words what their experience was like, and have a hard time reconnecting with the people who don't understand. While you can never fully know what it was like unless you were there, it is a way of seeing and hearing some of what they don't want to say. On the other hand, it allows those returning soldiers to understand a little better what the experience was like at home for their families left behind.
I would recommend this film to anyone, but I would have to tell them to rent the DVD and watch all the special features- 30 minutes of interviews with the three men, and 80 minutes of extended footage. I had hoped the documentary would have been longer because I had so many questions when it ended, and I was glad to see nearly two additional hours. One of my favorite scenes was in the extended footage when Mike Moriarty reads us a letter he receives from a WWII vet. It is really touching.
Considering all the 24-hours news channels and the 1000+ channels on cable, this is a war that really isn't televised or properly visually documented and our media does a really crappy job of informing US citizens. That's what makes this doc so powerful, because it isn't just a recap of everything we've seen on CNN or Fox News, it's something nobody's really been exposed to at home. For that reason, I think it's our job to watch a film like this.
The movie I seen was Control Room. I really loved this movie, the style was great and so was the footage. It started out like a feature film and kind of slow, but once it picked up, it was great. I had to pause some of it because it was too hard to watch. All the bombing and people crying was too much for me, but I got through it.
It was emotional for me because I know what America did was wrong, but I never got to see the Iraqis faces before. But once I seen how they felt it made me mad at America and Bush all over again. People had blood all over them and were in so much pain, and the American soldiers weren't phased by their pain.
When America shows coverage of those areas overseas, they make it seem like they are wild animals with no feeling, but they have feeling like everyone else and I felt their pain.
The film i chose was Bus 174, directed by Jose Padilha. If i could describe it in one word it would be "flawless". The film is an in depth examination of an event that struck Rio de Janeiro in June of 2000.
In June a young man hijacked a bus in rio de Janeiro taking 12 passengers hostage. The hijacker was Sandro de Nascimento, a young Brazilian street kid who was orphaned at the age of six after witnessing his mother brutal murder. After a long stand off with the Rio police Sandro agreed to surrender himself and the hostages, but due to disorganized authority within the police ranks Sandro was shot at. The bullet ended up missing him and killing a hostage. Due to disorganization and lack of police, the media was all over the scene to cover the event, inevitably leading to chaotic riots in the streets of Rio de Janeiro.
The main reason i like the film is because it touches on the universal fact that there is two sides to every story. As Sandro is viewed as another street kid criminal run amock he transforms nd uses the emdia to his advantage. He becomes a voice for the endless number of kids turned to the streets and ignored by "upper class society". He uses the situtation, taht is thoguth to be a robbery gone wrong, as an oppurtunity to turn the tables on a harsh and corrupt politcal system.
The doc shows segments of actually footage from the scene captured by a large number of various journalists there at the time. It also takes an in depth look at all those involved and effected. Including Sandro's closest thing to family, his aunt, friends and other street kids, officers on the scene at the time of the incident including some journalists who were there. As well as some of the hostages that played a big role in the events that took place that day. As the film progresses it changes from a piece about the hijacking and hostage situation to a film exposing the horrid treatment and abuse imposed on Brazilian children of tragedy turned to the streets by a cruel and unfair system.
A MUST SEE
So I watched Lake of Fire. I wish I would have known a few things about this film before I watched it, but that is my fault for not reading the info on the film. Not to say I wouldn't have watched. I just didn't realize I was going to see an actual abortion. I think it was a brave move on the film maker to document that and I don't even know how he got the approval from the patient to film that. I really appreciate his decision to use black and white film. It made many of the difficult to watch scenes strangely beautiful. The mixture of interviews and actual footage continually maintained my interest for it's 2 1/2 hour duration. What was really interesting was a segment with Cardinal Roger Mahoney preaching the evils of abortion and how it murders children. Roger Mahoney is actually the subject of another doc called Deliver of Use From Evil in which Mahoney was responsible for relocating Father Tom Doyle multiple times after being caught molesting 100's of children. Including a rape of 9 month old baby. Apparently in the womb children have value but once there out they must fend for themselves. This film definitely makes me angry against the religious fanatics, but I do recommend this anyone who has strong feelings about the issue either way. What is represented here is the extremist on both sides but the prolife side is represented primarily by nutcases.
For my second film, I viewed 'This Film is Not Yet Rated.' Very interesting movie about a seemingly dry topic. Who knew movie ratings could be so secretive and hold such mystery? The film's commando style of photography reminded me of something of a Michael Moore movie, with the director starring in the film. There were a lot of interesting characters, I loved the private investigators! They made such a seemingly small subject into an important one, and then ended up actually causing a social change! Even if it was over something petty like film ratings, it was still interesting to see how this film could have an impact on society.
Marc Singer's Dark Days is absolutely impressive. Centered around a community of homeless people living under the subways in New York, it is shot very much like a goin-to-the theater to hear a story kind of movie. In it we watch scenes- we hear about people lives, we watch people smoke crack,we watch them cook and laugh and tell stories. The audience gets to know the characters and we feel as though we get them- the connection is drawn and we can relate. I have no idea how Singer got this population to open up with him, but in my research it says he befriended many of the homeless population, and I promise you their performances are stellar. You could not get actors to be funnier or more appealing or emotionally provocative to play these roles- the cast is perfect.
Besides that, there is a lot of nice metaphor within the cinematography- shots in the dark with white highlights, pauses to remind us we are still underneath the subways existing in filth, and all of it documented beautiful. I didn't feel like I was watching a documentary- I felt like i was watching fiction, with the benefit of it being real. Totally impressive.
This movie definitely deserved to win The Best Documentary Award (2000) from both Los Angeles Film Critics Association and the Indie Spirit.
For my 2nd doc, I watched the "American Dream." I've seen bits and parts of this doc in my Urban Geography class, but I thought it was interesting how the director tried to relate a corporation to a mental health patient. They do not care about the workers, or the consumers, just the stock holders (who finance). Corporations are run by greed, not by those who work for them or the consumer.
Although, the director stirred allot of emotions within labor unions, and worked hard for union rights.
I liked the style that Barbara Kopple gives... multiple interviews with strikers on the line.
Post a Comment