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.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Documentaries galore! (part 3)
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:
I chose to watch ‘My Kid Could Paint That,’ not found on the list but ever so conveniently onDemand over spring break. This documentary followed the story of 4 year-old Marla Olmstead, an abstract painter compared to Jackson Pollock, and her family as they are thrown into media frenzy over their daughter’s sudden success in the modern art world. The first half of the documentary explores questions like what is abstract art and who decides what makes it “art”? and if a child can paint it, doesn’t that debunk the hype over modern art? He explores the immense influence of media to build something up and up and knock it back down again. Bar-Lev interviews Marla’s agent, a photo-realist painter himself and has always been skeptic of the abstract, a woman from the local paper who covered the first story of Marla, NY Times art critic Michael Kimmelman, and others.
The turning point of the documentary is when the Olmsteads sit down to watch a 60 Minutes segment on Marla, where a secret camera records her painting and a child psychologist points out that she does nothing extraordinary or different than a “normal” preschooler with paint, suggesting that her father either coaches her as she paints or doctors her canvasses. The controversy changes the course of the film, and I think this is where it begins to lose focus. Bar-Lev suddenly feels the pressure of having been, as honestly as possible, following the family and getting to know them on a personal level. When the 60 Minutes story comes up, he begins to have his own suspicions of Marla’s paintings and realizes he doesn’t have his own footage of Marla completing one of her pieces.
There’s a scene where he is talking to the camera while driving home from a shoot one night, contemplating his internal conflict over the changing plotline. In another scene, Bar-Lev does a slide show of the works from Marla’s art show in contrast with the two pieces that Marla completed start to finish on film: one from 60 Minutes and one from the documentary, allowing the viewer to make their own decision on whether or not they look alike, and whether or not Marla is the sole author of all the paintings alike.
“I discovered was that this film is about adults, about people projecting what they want onto Marla and her art. It's like Chauncey Gardner in Being There. Her childlike simplicity brings out things in people.
The film is also about how people control information. The parents so desperately wanted their name cleared. That's what they wanted from me. As I said, My Kid Could Paint That is a story about stories, and less about greed. The parents want that control. But it's a Faustian bargain. By deciding to remain in the light, they actually lose more control.” –Amir Bar-Lev
On some level I see what Bar-Lev is talking about and how he attempts to make that point in his film. But from what I saw in the second half, Bar-Lev takes too much initiative in getting the answers to the concerns raised by 60 Minutes and uncovering the truth, which he doesn’t get. He sits down again with Marla’s parents until Laura Olmstead seems to have had enough and breaks down, worried most about how all this hype has affected her daughter, willing to be put through a polygraph test, and wanting the director to be on their side and portray them in a positive light as their friend and trusted cameraman. The most likely of stories is that the father, an amateur painter, had assisted or coached his daughter off camera without the knowledge of the media or even of his wife, but nothing is ever confirmed. Understandably, the turn of events threw the director for a loop and off track of his original plan, but I think he ended up exploiting the story not unlike the media he questioned early on.
Keeping with the art theme Liane brought up I watched "Crumb" by chance this past weekend, and looked to find it on the list after all. Documentaries are permeating my brain!
Crumb follows cartoonist R. Crumb into his world of sexual repression, mentally anguished family members, ex-lovers, and of course cartoons.
My roommate had talked about R. Crumb before, and I think if I look back on these posts someone may have reviewed this film already. I'll check later as not to become tainted.
In short I liked Crumb not only for its quirky feel and insight, but also for its universal appeal to people with a passion. R. Crumb said that if he goes a couple days without drawing he begins to feel depressed, without a purpose. His drive is immense, but when it comes down to it he just draws because he has to. I tend to feel that way about rock climbing, and it seems funny that I could not put words to this feeling until watching a movie about a cartoonist.
Aesthetically the film is very attentive to detail, containing extremely close inserts, lingering, and evoking emotions through silence. We see shots over Crumb's shoulder through his thick glasses, thus giving us a glimpse int what he literally sees. There are segments where the camera just lingers on people juxtaposed with drawings of Crumb's characters. Suddenly everything is a character, and reality ceases to exist. Total immersion.
The film that I watched was Man On Wire. That was great. I was there with the whole team as they told their stories of that day and the days it took to get there. I think I was emotionally connected to all the character and I feared for them when they went out on missions.
The most fear came when the main character went across all those tight ropes before doing the world trade center. I always felt like he was going to fall and die, but of course he wasn’t.
The way all the interviews were cut was really good also because, it’s like they would finish each other sentences. And sometimes, one would tell a story and someone else would finish it, I really liked that part. My only disappointment was that they didn’t ask what they felt after the twin towers went down. I would think they would feel some type of way. All that hard work to get up there without getting arrested or dying and now there gone. I’m sure there are emotions from that, but the movie doesn’t take it there. I’m guessing they didn’t because they didn’t want to focus on the bad but the good. That ‘s my conclusion.
So I watch one of Kirby Dick's earlier Docs called Sick: The Life and Death of Bob Flanagan, Supermasochist. Bob was a writer, poet, performance artist, comic, and practicing masochist. Bob was also born with Cystic Fibrosis which is a hereditary disease that is affects the mucus glands of the lungs. The average lifespan of someone with the disease is 37 years old. Death eventually occurs when the sufferer chokes on their own mucus. The film introduces Bob very powerfully with him reading an excerpt of his own obituary. Before I say anything else about the film I have to say this film is not for people who have a difficult time observing untraditional (which is an understatement by the way) sex acts. I should say this is not some soft core whipping action. I think the criteria is if you can handle seeing someone nail their dick to a board your good. Though many of the scenes are very shocking it doesn't overshadow or trivialize the role that death plays in the film. It is through this lifestyle that Bob finds relief from imminent death by using it as a way in which he takes control of the pain that his disease inflicts upon him. Bob has a contractual submissive relationship with a woman by the name of Sheree Rose. Footage of intimate moments between the two of them defines what this relationship means and how it functions for the two of them in their private lives and in the art that they create together. As the reality of death creeps closer and closer to their world the way in which they handle it is fascinating. I highly suggest this film for anyone who has an open mind on sexuality or a fascinations of how people cope with death.
Lenny Bruce Without Tears was pieced together from historical Lenny Bruce footage, voice overs over weird seemingly random footage (an attempt at comedy?), and a few interviews. Not too much of the insides of Lenny Bruce revealed. Instead the audience sees a lot of his on-stage persona, which I suppose became rather revealing itself as most of his routine became focused around his courtroom experiences. A character portrayal of Lenny Bruce as obscene and drug addicted, I'm not sure the documentary painted a picture of really just how obscene I have realized Lenny Bruce to be. Perhaps as he was always getting in trouble for his obscenities, Fred Baker remained cautious of his film and stayed away from the overly offensive jokes, as the obscenity laws were still hot when the movie was made. The drugged out-zombie-esque character that Bruce becomes towards the end is powerful and it's hard not to want to watch Lenny Bruce if only for his facial expressions and head shrugs. After every time he makes a joke, he spins his head a bit and then gives you this goofy smile which makes you laugh whether or not the joke did. Made in 1972, this doc is experimental and i spent a lot of the film wondering what the experiment was in attempts to do. Otherwise, it revealed a famous American persona's skin, without showing us the heart or brain underneath.
I watched Hell House, which I had seen bits and pieces of before but not the whole thing. It was about this "haunted" house that is put on by a church each year. Instead of the usual hunted house stuff, Hell House depicts scenes of people doing things that would make them go to hell, from the conservative christian perspective. Stylistically, it wasn't really anything special. I think that this was really one of those films where the subject is what makes the documentary, not the way the subject is displayed.
I enjoyed the film, and I am glad that I finally got a chance to watch it in it entirety, but at the same time, I was somewhat surprised about some of the "sins" they chose. I guess, being raised catholic, I should have known these things would be in there, but for some reason I am still a little surprised when I hear things like that you go to hell for being a homosexual. Despite things like this, I still found the film very enjoyable.
It was shown from a strictly informational standpoint. There was no narration, nobody from the film was in the film. Even the people within the film seemed to be relatively unaware of the cameras in the room. This made for a very interesting film because it made the subjects of the film, explain themselves, which in some cases just made them seem more ridiculous. It made it so that the filmmakers were not saying "look how crazy these people are", instead the people themselves were essentially saying "look how crazy I am". One example is when several members of the church explained the legitimacy of speaking in tongues.
While I may disagree with some of the values that the people in this film have, it is still defiantly worth watching, mainly just to know that things like this really do go on. I had no idea that there could be so many people who would gather around something like this.
For my documentary, I choose one off the list, but one that we started to watch in class: Outfoxed (Fox News). (Hope that's okay??) I remember the beginning when we started watching it, and it was so compelling, that it made me want to rent it, and watch it. Coming from St. Louis, it's a majority conservative state. The city itself was half liberal half conservative, and I went to a very conservative school. If I thought abortion was okay, and publicly said so, they would send me home for the day. Less than five minutes away from my house, was trailer-park gallore, wal-mart, and big trucks with cowboy hates. I was raised in a very interesting setting. I remember watching news all the time while in bed, Fox and CNN. I never paid attention to Fox news, until one day, the topic of same-sex marriage came up. Me questioning my sexuality (around 13-14), I was very angry at the Fox news channel. I continued to watch it though, and all through the day, the focus was on how bad this was, and started to spread fear. CNN covered the topic as well, but brought both sides to the table, and was fair at giving each it's own time.
When I started high school, I soon became busy with work, and high-school activities to pay any attention to fox news, nevertheless TV. Now, watching this documentary, I can't believe at the lies, and how Fox tried smearing the news to mean something else. Follow the money! Murdoch is a very controlling, political man.
The documentary itself was very well done. They had leaked internal memo's, and read them out-loud during the film. This backed up the "issue" of Fox not being fair and balanced. Adding the former employee stories, increased the evidence against Fox.
the film i chose to view for this was The Weather Underground. It scared the shit out of me. Over all the film was well made and flowed very nicely. It did a spectacular job at covering a topic that is extremely taboo and doing it with skill and grace. My only critique is that the film was made far to in favor of the Weathermen and built them up on a pedistal, and that put this film one step over propaganda for me.
I know this isn't a thread on political discussion, but in my opinion the Weathermen are fucking nut jobs, jsut like any other extreemist group that uses war, poverty and disease as an excuse to unleash their sick and twisted revenge. Angered souls who think fighting fire with fire with save anyone rather then spreading the war from Vietnam to the whole world as governemtn battles with rebels. Their motivations were whole hearted in the early years, then the organization took on a terrorist face and lost sight of what it set out to do. They attempted to take advantage of a free American state and disassemble it form the inside out, which personally pisses me off, because unlike most, i am still proud and grateful to be an American....... and a person of freedom and choice. But when you hypocritically try to destroy the system that supports you then you loose my respect. I may not agree with everything that America does esspecially in contemporary times, but i do agree with the theories that America is based around, freedom and equal oppurtunity and ill be damned if a group of radical hippies on a power high will deem my respect by trying to take away the very system that grants them their freedom to do so.
WHen the interview the gentlemen in prison though he denies it you can clearly see the regret in his eyes.
"Al Qaeda meet The Weather Underground, your inside source...... fuck the West, democracy and freedom, lets blow shit up!"
Post a Comment