Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden? - Posted on Behalf of Sam Walhall

Sam Walthall
Cinema Arts Blog
Documentary: Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden?
Director: Morgan Spurlock
Year: 2008
In "Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden?" Morgan Spurlock travels through the Middle East in a quest to find wanted terrorist, Osama Bin Laden. This documentary is an example of an interactive documentary, and a Director-participant documentary, in which Spurlock adds commentary and speaks to the camera in a direct manner. He combines storytelling strategies such as voice of authority, where Spurlock is not physically in the scene, but voices over to give supporting information to what is being filmed, and talking heads, interviews with the people of the Middle Eastern countries - an interesting example is when two young male students are interviewed about their opinions on the war, with their teachers standing behind the cameras; they falter nervously over their words and immediately take back any replies they try to come up with, glancing constantly to their teachers - and then the cameras are ordered to be turned off. This also proves as an example to the director's adherence to cinema verite: "honesty, intimacy, and above all objectivity." Spurlock's style also comes with goofy jokes - not mockumentary, which fictionally parodies actual documentaries; it is a true documentation of a quest into the Middle East. Rather, it's in his live commentary during the journey, and comedic animations used as transitions and conveying complex information, that the comedic tones come in handy. In some aspects, Morgan's documentary is somewhat avant garde; the combination of artistic conveyance, lighthearted commentary, and documentary-style information (interviews, travel log), along with the director's choice to include his own homelife in the piece in a video diary-esque style, strays from the traditional standards of straight documentary. Overall, the piece did exactly as it was meant to as a documentary - it informed, entertained, and it gave America a different perspective on the conditions in the Middle East, and that part of the world's view of our government.

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

F**k: The Documentary

Fuck
Directed by: Steve Anderson (2005)

Scanning the shelves of TLA i passed by some very unique and even startling documentaries. For example there was one documentary entitled: Zoo, which was about zoophiles or people who like to have...well you get it. Most of these documentaries were on people or places or an event that occurred in history that could be considered remarkable or controversial. But instead I saw a film entitled: FUCK. This is literally a documentary on the history of the word itself and how it has had such a profound effect on the world we live in today. The overall argument or position that was presented was, "what type of effect does the word fuck have on people."

The film took up its 95 minute length mostly with interviews and relied mostly on humor to keep the audience entertained. It scanned a wide variety of people from Ice- T and Drew Carey to Sam Donaldson and Ron Jeremy. These interviews included the responses by the interviewees and no hand by the interviewer. Basically, the film gave a topic: Fuck in the news, Fuck in sports, Fuck in front of Children and asked people to respond to it. Outside of the celebrity interviews, they allowed the common viewer to connect with some street interviews with people walking around.

Aside from the interview portion the film utilized video clips from news and film to portray the wide array of uses for the forbidden word. It gave a history on it from linguist and editors of Oxfords dictionary. If there is one thing this documentary definitely was, it was thorough. It portrayed all sides of the argument from a wide spectrum of people and exampled conducted in traditional documentary style (framing to one side, rule of thirds). They sat back relaxed and let the swear words fly.

Un Chien Andalou- Ferraro

"Un Chien Andalou"
Luis Bunuel and Salvador Dali
1929

"Un Chien Andalou" is a decent example of avant-garde because of its experimental structure and storyline (despite its bizzareness). This movie could go under the "Surrealist" category, as odd things happpen almost every moment, for example the random slicing of the woman's eyeball, and then the hand that reaches for the woman is suddenly covered with ants. This is definetely not the usual movie story, even by today's standards, so yes it may tend to freak people out. But certainly that's what Bunuel and Dali were going for when they directed it. It's something new, different, and unique.

As shown in the book, this qualifies for its take on everyday society with risque images and ideas (a man pulling a piano(?) across the room that has two soldiers tied up to it) and the location appears to change even though the characters are suppose to be in one spot, specifically in the bedroom scene. Another abstract scene is when the woman spots a moth, and a man appears out of nowhere and loses his mouth (literally). She replaces the mouth by putting lipstick on her own face. Strange things happen, and we don't know why, which is why it's best call an "experimental" film.

Fahrenheit 9/11 - Kim Roberto

Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)
A Film by Michael Moore

Many people will tell you that this doc has an obvious agenda and those people are absolutely correct in their observation. Michael Moore was most definitely trying to discredit President George W. Bush around the time of the 2004 presidential election -- and according to the film, it was for one heck of a good reason. This was my first time screening Fahrenheit 9/11 and it's a wonder I haven't done so sooner. It is highly interpretive in its findings and can quite clearly be placed on the left side of the line drawn in the sand.

The film is narrated by Moore himself who is never without witty, insightful commentary which accompanies images of American politicians as they make blunder after blunder. It also has quite a unique tone -- at times, I found myself wondering if I was watching a documentary or a satire. Moore treats it like he's a kid telling stories around the campfire and I was absolutely riveted. I think a sarcastic tone was needed in order to portray the Bush administration; it's a sort of poetic irony considering that our former President tended to treat American politics with a detached sense of humor.

Moore goes out of his way to personally interview many of the participants in the doc, especially the mother of a soldier killed over in Iraq. He carefully details her experiences with the war over the course of at least several months: when we first see her, she is a staunch supporter of the war, much as we all were in the beginning. Yet, as time presses on, she becomes more and more dissatisfied until one day, we come to find that her son has died as a result of the war. It gets us emotionally invested to the point where you find yourself getting angry at everything all over again.

It's interesting to note that the film is not told in chronological order, but rather by order of ideas. It is organized in such a way that revelations are easily made so that the film feels almost like a feature. We get familiar with people who are present for most of the doc and come to regard them emotionally the way one might regard a character in a feature film.

We are also exposed to graphics and music that definitely give a liberal impression by the way they caricature the members of the Bush administration. For example, at one point in the doc, Bush, Cheney, and several other members of his entourage are introduced as cowboys in an old western flick to symbolize that the invasion of Iraq was made by cowboys with a thirst for oil.

He also touches on fear as a motivator; while this film was highly influential, Bush still won the upcoming 2004 presidential election. So, perhaps Moore was proven right: people were so afraid of the "red alert" and the terrorist threat that they re-elected a man to office who was clearly unsuitable for the job.

Moore's style, while very cinematic and metaphorical, is also heavy on research. He really doesn't leave any room for second guesses which is an especially good thing for a doc with a point of a view. It was convincing enough to sway the potential Bush-fanatic -- gees, did anybody like that guy? I shudder to think.

F%ck - A Documentary - Elyse Stefanowicz

"Fuck" (2006)
Director - Steve Anderson

This documentary is literally about the word "fuck". It circles around many people - politicians, actors, porn stars, musicians, writers, etc. all explaining their own versions of the word. It follows "fuck" in the news, sports, politics, religion, newspapers, movies and music and highlighted all of fuck's greatest moments. Linguists were also interviewed to help derive the word and try to figure out it's definite meaning and origin. The documentary was a fun ride and keeps the audience interested from start to finish.

While watching a documentary based solely on a word, I couldn't help but wonder how they were going to film it while keeping it interesting. "Fuck" is a word and cannot be technically seen, interviewed, or for that matter filmed (the word itself, not the act), so the documentary seemed to have quite a challenge ahead of it. What I found out after watching, however, was that the filmmaker did an excellent job of keeping the audience involved and not bored. The entire film was a talking head interview and had some film footage and clips of when fuck was used in a certain place and time.

The film had to rely on the people talking about it to tell its story, which in my opinion can be risky. The interviewees varied greatly which also kept the documentary interesting. At certain parts there would be a very conservative politician speaking his mind only to have a very liberal actor countering his argument. The contrast of view was perhaps one of the most interesting aspects to me. Instead of voicing a certain opinion, the audience received different types of views, and were left to decide how they felt about the subject. The film didn't instill a specific opinion or view of the word and had each side of the spectrum tell its own belief.

Heavy Metal in Baghdad-Star Brown

Heavy Metal in Baghdad (2007)
Directors: Eddy Moretti and Suroosh Alvi

After viewing this documentary and then reflecting on the current events in America, I thought, “damn…we got it good.” Heavy Metal in Baghdad is no joke. It is an insightful film that takes an intimate look at the truth and reality of life in Baghdad during the insurgency and how dangerous it is for a band to perform heavy metal music.

The film starts off with the directors putting on bulletproof vests in an open dirt lot surrounded by men with guns, hired to protect them. Their faces are blurred. This is setting the scene and story on the fear and extreme paranoia that haunt the city of Baghdad to the point of it being almost unreal. Suroosh, one of the directors has his face shown on camera and his voice-overs narrate the entirety of the film. He states, “This is risky, it’s dangerous, people say it’s really fucking stupid for us to be doing this, but um…you know heavy metal rules.”

The directors made an interesting choice by integrating their personal experience of documenting the only heavy metal from Baghdad, Acrassicauda. By involving themselves in the documentary, it opens the story to unfolding their relationships with the band members and their attempts to try and help these guys to keep on playing heavy metal. The constant conflict these characters face is the ever-present violence and suspicion that lingers everywhere. The directors drive around in bulletproof cars armed with guns. They have a translator to help them get around and make contact with the band members. They can’t speak English out loud or they may get sniped. The same goes for the band members who have lived in the war zone since it all happened. Firas, the bassist states how they’re use to all the violence and not shocked to see or hear about bombings in the city. It is to be expected and that he lives every day as if it were his last. The band members all share that same thought of being unafraid of death and that their ultimate dream is to keep playing heavy metal music for their fan base.

The shooting style was very raw—cinema verite. Especially during the scenes in Baghdad, you could just see how things were shaking when they were outside exposed in the daylight. This contributed to showing the truth of what is really going on in Baghdad, (which probably rubbed those Republicans the wrong way). The film consists of a mixture of b roll footage of Baghdad and Syria with casual talking head sequences.
Every minute in every scene is eye opening with the way it was shot, the characters with their real lives in Baghdad and the directors’ personal involvement with the band.

The narrative structure is strong and compelling for the viewer to be interested throughout the film. Moretti and Alvi weave important facts about Baghdad and the critical effects it has on the Iraq people—especially the band members. The beginning of the film shows Baghdad: apache helicopters bombing buildings, trucks with guns, decayed buildings everywhere, scarce people walking around, ak47 guns, road blocks, and the band members sitting inside a venue talking about their music and the huge challenges they face for playing one gig. The film moves on to Syria where many Iraqi refugees have fled including the band members. There they give it their last shot to perform but not sure what to expect. They end up having a successful show giving them the extra push into recording an album. The band uses heavy metal as a creative outlet for their anger and rage on the messed up situation in Baghdad and the oppression it has left on the Iraqi people. Toward the end, it gets real intense and emotional as the band members start speaking their thoughts directly to the camera that’ll reach the people of America. Their music and their voices have finally been heard.

Documentary - McGuirk

Bowling for Columbine (2002)

Director: Michael Moore

This documentary's purpose was to find out why America is one of the leading countries in deaths from gun violence, even though the country is not at civil war. Moore uses several images, people, and events to prove his point that guns are a problem in this country.

The documentary is mostly driven by Moore's commentary. He's an active participant in the film, doing interviews, making commentary. His voice never seems to leave the picture. He shows clips of guns being looked at and treated very casually. The biggest piece in the film is about the Columbine Killings and the fact that the killers would play video games with guns in them and were loners who's parents didn't watch them. The two boys even went out bowling that morning before shooting-up their school and eventually killing themselves. He even includes the video from the library that shows the killers shooting students under tables.

Watching this for the first time I found myself being persuaded by Moore's point a view. He's not shy to tell the audience how he feels about the issue and show with graphic pictures that he's right. Wathing it a second time, I realized how one-sided every aspect of this documentary was. Moore doesn't allow any positives of the other opinion to come through. If he interview a person who is for guns, he questions them into a corner and with the power of editing on his side, can make them seem dumb, arrogant, or uninformed. It's a very powerful way to make people see the world the way the director wants them to see it.

RADIOHEAD--HOUSE OF CARDS

Many of Radiohead’s music videos are known for being unconventional and innovative. For "House of Cards" no cameras or lights were used. Instead, 3D plotting technologies collected information about the shapes and relative distances of objects. The video was created entirely with visualizations of that data.

What we see is a man’s face in particles over a black background and a neighborhood, also in particle form, which continually fades away.

This avant-garde approach supports themes within the music. The song is about longing and desire for someone who doesn’t want to be with you. He wants his love to forget about what they’re holding onto. These elements of falling apart and detachment are evident in the hyper reality images, neon colors, and the dissipation of the partials that make up this world. Radiohead’s music videos are not organized according to a narrative form. It’s about the aesthetic means of expression. Along with the music and the images as a visual means of what’s being expressed you focus solely on this artistic medium and how you feel based on what’s really being said and what these images mean to you and how it makes you feel.

~Brianna P.

Theresa Corvino - Planet Earth

Planet Earth
Dir: Alastair Fothergill
2006

Planet Earth is a epic undertaking for any filmmaker, especially of a documentary nature. The film takes a segment to devote to each area of the world and dives far into it to display the beauty and wonder of the world as it is meant to be seen.

Planet Earth, although it does not have a human subject matter, does attempt to portray a message about its subject matter and how the creators think we should view them. They see the world as beautiful apart from what man has created and they see it as something that should not be touched or destroyed by men. And though the message is popular and widely believed, it could be considered a propaganda film because it does not look into any other position except their own. They spend the entire time showing the positives and do not consider the negatives.

They also employ a voice of authority by use of a narrator that is famous in their own right. The BBC version is narrated by David Attenborough and the American is Sigourney Weaver. This gives the film a god-like narrator that speaks with authority as though it is fact and ultimate truth.

One of the greatest positives about how Planet Earth was filmed was the fact that it was filmed in a direct cinema style. The cameramen spent months in their environment, carefully watching in a way as not to disturb their subjects. It is clear in watching the documentary that the subjects did not have any idea of the presence of a human among them.

Justin Afifi - When We Were Kings

Directed by: Leon Gast

When We Were Kings is a documentary centered on the epic "Rumble in the Jungle" heavyweight title match of 1974 between Muhammad Ali and George Foreman in the country of Zaire. The documentary shows Ali and Foreman's different experiences as they prepare for the rumble, as well as the soul festival that featured such artists as James Brown and the Spinners. The supposedly past his prime Ali spends his time training and connecting with the people of Africa. While the imposing force of George Foreman is jeered by the people that he assumed would love him simply because he was a black man.

The star of the documentary is Ali. He was always known as one of (if not the) most charismatic figures in sports, but the film puts Ali in perspective. He wasn't just entertaining but he was a great human being. Although he was a visitor to Africa he constantly mentioned how he finally felt he was home. He had all of Zaire cheering for him, and against Foreman. We also see an emotional Ali as he talks about how America turned on him after refusing to go to Vietnam, a move that would cost him the same heavyweight title he was fighting for.

The film is a talking head type documentary as it has several commentators interviewed to discuss the impact of the fight and the experience. Notable interviewees include Norman Mailer, Spike Lee, George Plimpton, and Thomas Hauser. Each of them has a story to tell, or an experience with Ali and explain the cultural phenomenon that was the "Rumble in the Jungle." The film does a tremendous job of not only showing the cultural significance but also building a fight that has happened decades ago and making it interesting to those who have and haven't had the opportunity to see it.

On the road with Duke Ellington - Brian Herron

On the road with Duke Ellington
Robert Drew - 1974
Brian Herron

On the road with Duke Ellington is an hour long documentary filmed in the year of 1967 when Duke Ellington, one of jazz musics most famous composers and musicians, is on tour with his band.  The film is shot in a cinema verite style.  Although there are a few short interviews where Robert Drew is able to sit down and actually talk to Ellington, it mainly focuses on his interaction with the musicians with his band and the other people involved with his tour.

The film shows what Ellington does as a human being rather than the musician everyone knows.  In one scene it shows Ellington talking about how he eats breakfast every morning and his feeling of breakfast being the most important meal of the day.  Ironically though it shows him eating things like a big steak with mashed potatoes, which he explains possibly being his last meal ever so he didn't want to eat something that is healthy and didn't like.  Another scene shows Ellington having a conversation with Louis Armstrong, the famous cornet player and singer.  The scene shows the two having a fun conversation and portrays Ellington's utmost respect for a legend like Louis Armstrong.

To me this film portrayed how strong verite shooting can be because verite is a very hands off style of shooting and it just lets life dictate what is being filmed.  I think that when Robert Drew was planning this film he chose verite because it was the best way to show his audience the personality of Duke Ellington and making them feel as if they were standing next to him listening in on his conversations.

Fahrenheit 9/11 by Amber S. Palmer - Documentary Review

Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)

Director: Michael Moore
Writer: Michael Moore

The era of political stupidity and American negligence to get rid of the worst President of America, days are coming to a end, this film was created to urge Americans four years ago to make a CHANGE and nobody listened until now. In Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, he uses countless interviews and different perspectives to show the torture George W. Bush has put America through. Moore does a significant job to show dramatic and compassionate images of families suffering the death of a son or daughter in the war. Moore opens the film showing one of the most tragic days in America, 9/11 and as the horrific images of fire and terror grow across the screen, a feeling of incredible sadness and anger come together. I remember seeing this film in the movies and I felt like I knew someone apart of the tragedy, even though I did not. Moore made the audience connect with the tragedy whether you knew a victim or not.

Moore portrays Bush the way the media try not to show Bush as a buffoon with no common sense and without a heart. Clips beyond clips of Bush giving the finger to the camera or to someone during a press conference and detailing the strange relationship he has with the Bin Laden’s. Moore outright tells the audience that Bush sold us to the Bin Laden’s all for the greed of the oil industry. As a commentator, Moore would linger between sarcasm and seriousness, which was cool to use at times but also a bit redundant. For example, Moore spoke to an army recruiter that was standing in front of Walmart’s or Target’s and he tried asking them questions like, would you send your son or daughter to the war? Moore knew he wouldn’t get a legitimate answer but then he would move to this woman who lost her twenty two year old son who dies in the war. Moore tried to bring the film back into an emotional state once the woman started crying. Moore did an excellent job of showing the hypocrisy of how government workers won’t put their own children in the world but yet again could care less about the million lives killed in Iraq over a meaningless war.

Moore also delves into Bushes past with the Texas National Guard and one of the pilots Bush went to school with end up being the head financial manager to the Bin Laden family. Creepy or what? Even though this documentary is not a horror piece but moment-by-moment it sends a chill up your spine to know that a man of this evil caliber is running our country. Surprisingly, Moore didn’t create this film as a source of propaganda as most people thought he would’ve done but instead Moore reveals the man behind the White House, his political ties, education, friends, and his poor handling of his job. Moore doesn’t fall off of the topic, which is George W. Bush, and he provides America with a glimpse of a man who’s created a negative, gigantic domino effect on America’s economy and sanity.

Fahrenheit 9/11 by Amber S. Palmer - Documentary Review

Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)

Director: Michael Moore
Writer: Michael Moore

The era of political stupidity and American negligence to get rid of the worst President of America, days are coming to a end, this film was created to urge Americans four years ago to make a CHANGE and nobody listened until now. In Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, he uses countless interviews and different perspectives to show the torture George W. Bush has put America through. Moore does a significant job to show dramatic and compassionate images of families suffering the death of a son or daughter in the war. Moore opens the film showing one of the most tragic days in America, 9/11 and as the horrific images of fire and terror grow across the screen, a feeling of incredible sadness and anger come together. I remember seeing this film in the movies and I felt like I knew someone apart of the tragedy, even though I did not. Moore made the audience connect with the tragedy whether you knew a victim or not.

Moore portrays Bush the way the media try not to show Bush as a buffoon with no common sense and without a heart. Clips beyond clips of Bush giving the finger to the camera or to someone during a press conference and detailing the strange relationship he has with the Bin Laden’s. Moore outright tells the audience that Bush sold us to the Bin Laden’s all for the greed of the oil industry. As a commentator, Moore would linger between sarcasm and seriousness, which was cool to use at times but also a bit redundant. For example, Moore spoke to an army recruiter that was standing in front of Walmart’s or Target’s and he tried asking them questions like, would you send your son or daughter to the war? Moore knew he wouldn’t get a legitimate answer but then he would move to this woman who lost her twenty two year old son who dies in the war. Moore tried to bring the film back into an emotional state once the woman started crying. Moore did an excellent job of showing the hypocrisy of how government workers won’t put their own children in the world but yet again could care less about the million lives killed in Iraq over a meaningless war.

Moore also delves into Bushes past with the Texas National Guard and one of the pilots Bush went to school with end up being the head financial manager to the Bin Laden family. Creepy or what? Even though this documentary is not a horror piece but moment-by-moment it sends a chill up your spine to know that a man of this evil caliber is running our country. Surprisingly, Moore didn’t create this film as a source of propaganda as most people thought he would’ve done but instead Moore reveals the man behind the White House, his political ties, education, friends, and his poor handling of his job. Moore doesn’t fall off of the topic, which is George W. Bush, and he provides America with a glimpse of a man who’s created a negative, gigantic domino effect on America’s economy and sanity.

Kandy Mansion Documentary by Josh Cohen

Dir. Lawrence Klein
released in 2005

"Well it sounded like an intriguing idea." This is the first line heard in the documentary titled, "Kandy Mansion". This documentary follows a ragtag group of Fitchburg State University to The Herbert Family Candy Mansion, a roadside ice cream/candy bar.
The Doc opens up with a roar of applause showing the subjects of the documentary raising their arms in the air. As they enter the candy mansion, a tacky 50's style song is heard singing about "America's first roadside ice cream/candy store." It doesn't specifically reveal whether or not the song is about the actual Herbert Candy Mansion in which this documentary takes place, but it sure fits. As they order their ice cream flavors, a sign is shown that reads, "One Trip Through the Ice Cream Bar, PLEASE!” Endless supplies of toppings are passed in a long camera pan.
Once the eating commences, a classical orchestral number plays over the subjects who gobble down plates full of grizzly, haunting platters of melting ice cream covered in various toppings. The faces of these kids are as mysterious as the Mona Lisa’s smile. Their expressions reveal a tone of bewilderedness yet complete determination. As an audience you’re right there with them, at least in the former of the two.
The documentary follows the young adults outside, then wherever you thought this was going, you find out you were probably wrong. “Candy Mansion didn’t have a chance.” This line is the first thing heard right before everybody starts regurgitating the swallowed ice cream. The grass from a dark green to a yellowish gray. Another sound clip, “ I had two flavors that I guess didn’t rub up against each other real well.” The Doc ends with a personal introduction of each subject. Most just state their name. One of the creators of the documentary, Lawrence Klein, who’s sure to one day, be the next Paul Verhoeven states directly into the camera, “I’m Two Sting Rays and we’ve won!”
When you look at what exactly this film is saying, it’s hard to have a traditional approach. It’s stated within the film that it just seemed like an intriguing idea. In terms of a point, or a message- World Peace is not of their concern. It forces the audience to endure mindless fun. An experience they may or may not want to take part in, but are forced to recognize exists. Lawrence Klein states it best as this quote is dubbed over his hunched over body wearing a cowboy hat and shades, “ We all got to fight our windmills, or search for Eldorado, and all the kids have to eat at Candy Mansion.”

DOCUMENTARY Review: Julie Angelicola

Step Into Liquid (2003)

Director/Writer: Dana Brown

I love surfing documentaries so for this week’s review I watched Step Into Liquid, one of Dana Brown’s many films aimed at exploring and understanding the culture of surfing and the people who love it. Step Into Liquid is narrated by Dana Brown who tends to narrate almost all of his films. Through his narration we are taken across the United States and far across the globe to different surf spots, some well-known, some best kept secrets, and introduced to everyone that has formed relationships with them. Dana becomes the voice of authority although he is merely guiding us to different locales. He is less authoritative and more like our own personal tour guide

The people we meet along the way vary from pro-surfers, men and women, children, parents, grandparents and entire families. These people share their stories of who they are, what they’ve become, their journeys, and why they’ve all turned to surfing as an important part of their lives. Some stories involve life or death situations while some are light-hearted accounts. By traveling across the globe we meet people of many different cultures and gather a well-rounded and unbiased view of surfing. The film does a great job of exposing the viewer to new and uncharted territories. If you already surf it makes you long to get back into the water again, and if you don’t surf it makes you willingly want to try it. There are no stereotypes, no stuntmen, and no special effects.

The story of the film progresses through countless interviews with these people, employing a primarily talking heads style documentary. We learn to understand the events and situations of the film through these interviews. There is not one primary character like in narrative films. In the film there are struggles but in a different way than a protagonist facing a problem he must overcome. These struggles are recounted, not faced in the present. This film is not direct cinema or a self-reflexive documentary. The film making process is not explored and the narrator is not seen as a character. Through the talking heads interviews the viewer is exposed to the breaking of stereotypical surfers and shown that this is a sport or hobby for anyone and everyone. There is a connection between the style of the film and surfing itself, showing that it is not judgmental and invites you to join at any time.

This film is different because like most documentaries it doesn’t make claims, arguments or assertions about the world. It is simply a journey to explore surfing and those who hold it so dearly. The goal of the film is to show the viewer surfing and surfers in a pure and natural state. 

The Rolling Stones Rock and Roll Circus: Reviewed by Davis Rivera

In his 1968 film “The Rolling Stones Rock and Roll Circus,” director Michael Lindsay-Hogg takes the observational mode of making a documentary film to its extremes in presenting timeless moments while maintaining such a disciplined detachment from the events that the viewer is left feeling both appreciation and guilt that Lindsay-Hogg went to such lengths to perfect the one event that summed up in its greatness the spirit of the late sixties. Though Lindsay-Hogg’s expertise in unobtrusive documentary filmmaking and his large role in crafting the film is immediately apparent, the man most responsible for the triumph of this film is the lead singer of the Rolling Stones, Mick Jagger. The film doesn’t necessarily rely on cause-and-effect logic which causes a certain unevenness to rear its head infrequently within the film, but what does make it classify as a narrative documentary is its presentation of its subjects, all of whom seem like characters, Jagger being the ring-leader, and, fittingly, bearing the dress of a ringmaster. Throughout the film, Jagger’s presence is so great that, were he to be the only man on camera during the film’s entire duration, he would be capable of referring the viewer not just to a satisfying story but also to a complex reality, thus creating the powerful narrative documentary he had hoped for simply by being himself.

The ambitious project was originally conceived by Jagger as a way of branching out from conventional records and concert performances. Jagger approached Lindsay-Hogg, who had directed two promos for Stones songs, to make a full-length TV show for them. According to Lindsay-Hogg, the idea of combining music and circus came to him when he was having a hard time trying to come up with ideas; he drew a circle on a piece of paper and free-associated. Hogg’s idiosyncratic intermingling of different modes of documentary filmmaking was a perfect match for Jagger’s well known intermingling of rock, blues, and rhythm and blues music. It is crucial to add, however, that this film never aired and it took 28 years for it to finally be released to the public. While shooting the film, the event was plagued with numerous technical difficulties and the setting up of equipment between acts became time-consuming and a serious problem. By the time the Stones took the stage, it was almost 5 A.M. the following morning (filming began at 2 P.M.)

Hours before the Stones’ performance, the Who performed their rock-opera “A Quick One While He’s Away,” to the delight of screaming fans who hailed their showmanship as, far and away, the best thus far. As one of the first acts of the show and fresh off a tour, complete with an introduction from a cigar-chewing Keith Richards, this was unavoidable. Though this is where the complex reality brought forth from Jagger is made apparent. Rumor had it that Jagger felt his performance was subpar and they were vastly upstaged by the Who, so no one would ever see the film. This is vastly in Jagger’s favor as, for a man who conceived the event, brought all of these acts together, introduced the event, kept careful watch over his then-girlfriend Marianne Faithfull (who also performed on the show), staged skits with John Lennon, performed a flawless six-song set list complete with moments of impromptu audience participation, among countless other things, to still hold this level of excessive glory as not to your standards shows the makings of what the Rolling Stones can rightfully claim as their legacy.

In contrast to a similar documentary film that was released around the same time, D.A. Pennebaker’s “Don’t Look Back,” the main subject of this film transcends everyone around him in a gloriously self-confident and expressive way. Jagger is not even the sole centerpiece of this film, a big part, yes, but the film revolves around his whole band. Bob Dylan, on the other hand, is the centerpiece of “Don’t Look Back,” though he comes across as an uneducated, hateful buffoon who surrounds himself with sycophants and a manager filled with just as much bile as Dylan. Dylan’s surroundings are the stuff of Dante Alighieri’s “Inferno,” very much in contrast to Jagger’s environment where to preside grandly, as the Stones do, over everyone is to be Augustus during the Pax Romana.

In this regard, again proving my point, editing is not the cinematic technique that offers the documentary filmmaker the greatest influence over the material. Neither the static camera nor the long take are needed to strongly connote the idea that the viewer is an invisible observer watching events unfold. To paraphrase Godard, “All a filmmaker needs for a movie is Mick Jagger.” This is true in the case of Robert Frank, Nicolas Roeg, Jean-Luc Godard, the Maysles Brothers, and, most recently, Martin Scorsese. The masters of late 20th/early 21st century photography, experimental film, existential film, documentary film, and narrative film all made arguably their best work because of this man, the raison d'ĂȘtre of “The Rolling Stones Rock and Roll Circus.” The film is a showcase for his polished, taunting performance style and shows why his rock-and-roll bravado has lasted so extravagantly for almost 50 years.

Monday, November 10, 2008

My Kid Could Paint That - Isaac Richter

I haven't seen many documentaries in my life, so this last weekend I went to the video store and asked if there was a documentary they could recommend me. I was pointed to this fascinating story about a 4-year-old girl who became an overnight sensation when her paintings were discovered. They were abstract painting in the neighborhood of Jackson Pollock. A style of art that was always thought of to have a hidden meaning, painted by this little girl who simply picked up a brush and discovered she loved to paint, and she was simply painting the way she wanted to paint, but there was a world of grownups who simply could not understand that and were trying to make something more out of it. And then came this controversial report on 60 Minutes that brought about a theory that Marla (the 4-year-old painter) did not actually paint those, or was helped by her father.
This is an interesting documentary, because it's a film that changed a lot during its making and the filmmaker doesn't try and hide it. In fact, about half way through the film, director Amir Bar-Lev becomes a character in the story. This film employs the Talking Heads and Director-Participant style of documentary filmmaking, first by interviewing Marla's parents, the owner of the galleries that have sold her painting, with Elizabeth Cohen, the journalist who wrote the first article on her and wished everyone would just leave her alone after that, and the 60 Minutes segment that sparked up a controversy became a surprise, even to him. Bar-Lev shows not only the opinions of the people he's interviewed, but he leaves his own voice as he asks the questions and answers certain questions that he's being asked. While most documentaries will present interviews as if they were talking only to a camera, leaving out any trace that there is a person asking them question, Bar-Lev left in footage where the characters, particularly Elizabeth Cohen, ask him questions directly and we hear him answer them.
There's this scenethat is particularly striking in which Amir Bar-Lev sits Marla's parents down on a couch and asks them directly whether Marla painted those paintings, and whether her father helped herin any way. This is after a DVD had been made of Marla painting her latest work from start to finish. Throughout the film, we see Bar-Lev's opinions change and his film take a different direction. It sarts out as a study of modern art, including abstract art, and then into a study of child prodigies, but then it turns into a story about stories. A story about how stories change perspectives and how different people can perceive the Truth, including 60 Minutes and all the different people Bar-Lev interviewed for his film. The interesting thing about Bar-Lev's approach is how he simply lets the story speak for itself instead of arranging things to have the story told his way. He takes accounts from Marla's mother who wants the media to leave her and her family alone, the father who wishes he were as good an artist himself and is enjoying the attention, Elizabeth Cohen who wrote the article and now regrets having given this little girl so much attention and Anthony Brunelli, the gallery owner who is proud to have discovered this so-called "child prodigy" (a term that Laura Olmstead, Marla's mother, says she dislikes). He also shows us footage of Marla painting with her little brother Zane, having fun, obliviou to the fact that her family's making thousands, potentially millions for her out of her paintings.
I find the Talking Heads documentary style the most fascinating, because it doesn't just tell a story, it reveals a story, with all its complications and every conflicting thought that goes through these people's heads, and in this particular documentary, the director acts as a character and brings in his own contribution to the story. He doesn't only capture it, his presence is key to how the story unfolds. He doesn't only give his opinions and he doesn't let his opinions define the story, which is difficult to do when you're making a documentary, which is why I really admire this one. I feel it could work beautifully as a narrative film as well, but the fact that the story was discovered while filming instead of following a script makes the story itself all the more engaging.