The $20,000,000 Club

When I first debuted the $20 Million club last summer, I figured that I would have to update it whenever another high-grossing doc burst upon the scene. That moment has happened, with the cursed Bieber movie. As an amateur journalist, I could not ignore this event, unfortunately. The newest entry to the $20 Million club, the cinematic masterpiece: Justin Bieber: Never Say Never.

The $20 Million Club
1. Fahrenheit 9/11: $119,194,771 (2004)
2. March of the Penguins: $77,437,223 (2005)
3. Justin Bieber: Never Say Never: $72,754,535 (2011)
4. Earth: $32,011,576 (2009)
5. Sicko: $24,540,079 (2007)
6. An Inconvenient Truth: $24,146,161 (2006)
7. Bowling for Columbine: $21,576,018 (2002)

Some other new faces in the Top 20 Domestic Box Office: Waiting for "Superman," Babies, Oceans, and Capitalism: A Love Story. This list favors newer documentaries since there has been a surge of doc interest of late, and because of inflation, which I certainly did not account for.

(click to enlarge)

Bieber's movie is still in the theaters, making money. Since I made the graph earlier today, its sales have gone up on Box Office Mojo by almost $3,000. Seeing as it happens to be the traditional tax day, I think I'm going to update this every April 15. That way, I won't have to break news when Bieber II comes out. I can't believe I've written Bieber this many times. I'm sorry.

Data from BoxOffice Mojo.com (link will be outdated).

Restrepo

Directors: Tim Hetherington, Sebastian Junger
(2010)

Afghanistan’s Korangal Valley is a remote, rugged region located deep in Taliban territory. It is such a volatile area that it has been dubbed "The Valley of Death" by American forces and “the most dangerous place in the world” by CNN. Restrepo documents the 15-month deployment of a platoon of men assigned to the explosive area. While there have been myriad documentaries released in the last decade addressing the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, none of them have offered the same kind of ground-level perspective seen in this film.

While the soldiers are fired upon every single day, they are still ordered to set up an outpost deeper in the valley. Under the leadership of the unflappable Captain Dan Kearney, they push forward. They set up a new camp, digging out trenches and setting up barricades. The only break from digging comes when they are suddenly faced with enemy fire. They fire back, wait until the shooting subsides, then start digging again. This world is beyond dystopian.



The soldiers are the reason the film is so compelling. Their captivating stories, often given intimacy thanks to the use of extremely tight shots, range from nerve-racking to quite humorous. It’s not often that subjects give so much of themselves during interviews. This may be due, in part, to their relationship with the filmmakers. The soldiers develop close relationships with each other due to the environment they are in. They may have developed similar bonds to the filmmakers, who had bore witness to the same harrowing events over the course of the 15-month deployment.

It would be difficult to overestimate the risk that the filmmakers took in shooting this footage. British photographer Tim Hetherington and American journalist Sebastian Junger (author of The Perfect Storm) embedded themselves in the trenches alongside the soldiers for 15 months. They sacrificed their lives in order to provide this perspective from the front lines, an invaluable account for posterity’s sake. It’s delights the mind's eye to imagine the possibility of watching footage from the American Revolution, as future generations will have this priceless account of the current conflict.

official film site * trailer * buy it here

Trivial Tidbits:

• Restrepo received the Grand Jury Prize for best documentary at the 2010 Sundance Film Festival.
• Nominated for the 2011 Academy Award for Best Documentary.

Trivial Epilogue:

• Junger’s Vanity Fair article on OP Restrepo
  

2011 Oscar Nominations Announced

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has announced the nominees for the 83rd Academy Awards. The King's Speech has "won" the most nominations, with 12. Co-hosting the ceremony will be Hollywood darlings James Franco and Anne Hathaway (the first time for each). The gala is slated for Sunday, February 27, 2011 at the Kodak Theatre in Los Angeles.

The nominees are:

Documentary (Feature)

• Exit through the Gift Shop Banksy and Jaimie D'Cruz
• Gasland Josh Fox and Trish Adlesic
• Inside Job Charles Ferguson and Audrey Marrs
• Restrepo Tim Hetherington and Sebastian Junger
• Waste Land Lucy Walker and Angus Aynsley

Documentary (Short Subject)

• Killing in the Name Jed Rothstein
• Poster Girl Sara Nesson and Mitchell W. Block
• Strangers No More Karen Goodman and Kirk Simon
• Sun Come Up Jennifer Redfearn and Tim Metzger
• The Warriors of Qiugang Ruby Yang and Thomas Lennon

The Red Chapel

Danish Title: Det Røde Kapel
Director: Mads Brügger
(2009)

It’s hard to believe that The Red Chapel is anything but fiction. The premise sounds downright absurd: Danish filmmaker Mads Brügger and two Danish-Korean comedians are permitted into the hermetic country of North Korea to perform a comedy show under the facade of a “cultural exchange.” However, unbeknownst to the regime of the “Supreme Leader,” Kim Jong-il, the Danes intend to shoot a film during their trip that will expose North Korea for the totalitarian dictatorship that it is.

The routine itself – performed by comedians Jacob Nossell (who has a disability that effects his speech, and refers to himself as “spastic”) and Simon Jul – could hardly qualify as amusing. It’s as though it was written to entertain a kindergarten class, complete with kazoos, amateur tap dancing, farting sounds, nonsensical yelling, and other various asinine noises. It is not as though the Danes are under the delusion that their act is hilarious. At one point, Jul himself exasperates that it is not funny. After the first rehearsal, the government emissaries make their extensive revisions. These modification are meant to censure rather than enrich the routine, including limiting the exposure of Nossell due to his disability.



Mrs. Pak, an envoy of the government, is delegated to chaperone the Danes during their stint in the country. She is the most prominently featured native in the film, and her interactions with the foreigners offer some insight into life as a North Korean citizen. Despite the damnable stance of the regime towards those with disabilities, she immediately takes a strong liking to Nossell. She goes so far as to say that he is like a son to her just hours after their first meeting. It’s as though she is trying to assuage the guilt she feels about her government’s policy. Later, when Jul innocuously asks her a mundane question regarding what it’s like living in North Korea, she has a hard time fighting tears. The fact that she was struck by such intense emotion at such a pedestrian question clearly indicates that she is either very unhappy or is perhaps not permitted to express how she truly feels.

At one point, Brügger and Nossell attend an anti-US rally eerily reminiscent of a National Socialist gathering in 1940s Berlin. (Jul, as Brügger explains, couldn’t attend due to “diarrhea.” However, one suspects that Jul’s own conscience precluded him from attending.) Brügger falls in line, raising his fist in solidarity with the nationalists. Nossell boldly refuses to comply, even as he advances in his wheelchair between flanks of soldiers. While he had been apprehensive about the trip from the start, this display of moral fortitude cements Nossell as the film’s contrarian. Brügger misses an opportunity here to see what would happen if he, too, had become defiant at such a public event. He was presumably (and justifiably) nervous that all of his footage would have then been confiscated.

There is something intrinsically interesting about a film that was shot in cloistered North Korea, just as a film about Yale’s Skull and Bones society would be worthy of note. The urban streets, seen from the window of a van, are totally deserted. Brügger explains the lack of any advertisements is due to the alleged “socialist” government. While it is somewhat disappointing that the film was not even more of a revealing exposé on the government’s deplorable human rights record, had Brügger et al pushed their luck any further, they may have had all of their footage confiscated…or ended up in a labor camp.

official film site * trailer * buy it (n/a)

Trivial Tidbits:

• Won Best Foreign Documentary at the 2010 Sundance Film Festival
• Won Best Nordic Documentary at Nordisk Panorama 2009

Trivial Epilogue:

• "Sundance Film Festival follow up: THE RED CHAPEL"

Catfish

Directors: Henry Joost, Ariel Schulman
(2010)

I have always had mixed feelings about film reviews, the vast majority of which seem to be a recounting of plot (I try, with limited success, to avoid doing that in these posts). I feel the same way about trailers, though to a lesser degree. While debating whether or not to see Catfish, I decided to seek out the trailer. I turned it off after hearing the first sentence, which was congruous with my beliefs about any film: “The less you know about this movie, the better.” And so with that caveat, I will try to talk in general terms about the film. But you may want to just stop reading and go watch it. (Furthermore, the poster below warns, "don't let anyone tell you what it is").

The term “documentary film” denotes a rather broad classification. While technically referred to as a doc, Catfish is unique in that it is a reality-based film with a narrative structure (though its authenticity has been the subject of debate). Without any intent to cheapen the film, once could argue that it is made in the genre of reality-television. Cameras just seem to be omnipresent as the characters live their lives. As they make realizations, the audience experiences them concurrently. Typical of most fiction films, Catfish is successful in taking the audience on an emotional journey.

Serendipitous doesn’t truly capture just how lucky the filmmakers were to capture the journey they took. As the subjects are presented in the beginning of the film, the endgame is unfathomable. And that is exactly why many have questioned the film’s authenticity. Had Catfish been a script, it could have been a great one. It’s hard to imagine that not only did these events actually occur, but that these three guys documented it all from the very beginning.



I questioned the films authenticity as I watched it, as I’m sure any active viewer would also do. But I was never convinced that it was a fake because there’s no way these unknowns could act as convincingly as they appear in the film. However, some people do believe that the film is a hoax, including Zach Galifianakis. Ariel Schulman responded to these claims in an interview with the MovieFone blog:

"Zach, thank you. That makes Henry and I the two best screenwriters in Hollywood, and Nev is the best actor since Marlon Brando," if that's the case. You know we're not that smart; we just have good instincts. We know when people are being fake.

The fact that this question has been raised begs the question: does it matter? I suppose there may be some legal issues at stake. But from a purely theoretical standpoint, I would contend that it doesn’t matter at all if this story is true or not. Either way, the film is disconnected from it’s creators and left to stand alone for audiences to experience and perceive. I’m sure there are those who would disagree with me. After all, in the beginning of Fargo, the Cohen brothers included text indicating that, other than name changes, the events in the film took place exactly as presented (which isn’t the case). They believed that if the audience believed they were watching a film based on actual events, it would change their perception of it.

It’s classification as a documentary would obviously be at stake if the film turns out to be a hoax. But regardless of the legitimacy of Catfish, the film is quite entertaining and worth a viewing. It is like no other doc out there. At it’s strongest points, it is downright suspenseful.

official film site * trailer * buy it here

Trivial Tidbits:

• The film took in $257,285 on 12 screens during its opening weekend in September of 2010
• *** Major spoiler alert *** Aimee Gonzales, the Vancouver, WA native whose pictures were used by Angela to portray her daughter Megan, was compensated for her involuntary role in the film
  

Trivial Epilogue:

• The "Catfish" Lawsuit (posted to ifc.com, 12/3/10)

Waiting for Superman

Davis Guggenheim
(2010)

A good education is the most vital asset a child can have. It has a profoundly widespread effect on the empowerment and development of our youth, and thus the future of our country. Waiting for Superman contends that the American education system is failing (American students rank 25th in math and 21st in science among industrialized countries) and points to immensely successful charter schools, which are publicly funded but operate independent of bureaucratic regulations that hamper other public schools, as a means of comparison.

Guggenheim brings this issue to life through the stories of five children, all vying for desks at charter schools across the country. These children are painfully aware of the significance of gaining enrollment in these charter schools, and their presence provides the audience with an emotional connection to the issue and to the film itself. Their earnest desire to learn raises the question: why can’t we provide every child in America with such a premium education?



One of the central figures of the film is the ebullient Geoffrey Canada, founder of the immensely successful Harlem Children's Zone. Canada invokes a childhood hope that Superman himself would emerge to rescue him from the desperation of the South Bronx. Canada’s career has led him to become Superman to the Harlem community, rescuing children by providing them with an education "from birth to college."

The coveted desks at the charter schools are in high demand. In order to keep admissions impartial, interested students are selected literally through a lottery drawing. Guggenheim captures the lottery on film, in all of its unwarranted horror. Students have a 5% chance of winning the lottery. The other 95% are destined for public schools and increased drop-out-rates.

Guggenheim mainly points to powerful teachers unions as a culprit against reform. However, in an article on HuffPo, Rick Ayers, Adjunct Professor in Education at the University of San Francisco, points out that there are other issues that need to be addressed;

The film dismisses with a side comment the inconvenient truth that our schools are criminally underfunded. Money's not the answer, it glibly declares. Nor does it suggest that students would have better outcomes if their communities had jobs, health care, decent housing, and a living wage. Particularly dishonest is the fact that Guggenheim never mentions the tens of millions of dollars of private money that has poured into the Harlem Children's Zone, the model and superman we are relentlessly instructed to aspire to.

Guggenheim has excelled in using the medium to address social issues and inspire reform. His previous film, An Inconvenient Truth, was heralded for raising international attention to global warming. During the closing credits for Waiting For Superman, the audience was urged to text "POSSIBLE” to 77177 to have $15 contributed to a Donors Choose project. The official film site, www.waitingforsuperman.com, also offers opportunities to take action.

official film site * trailer

Trivial Tidbits:

• Received the Audience Award for best documentary at the 2010 Sundance Film Festival

Trivial Epilogue:
Guggenheim on Colbert

Dark Days

Director: Marc Singer
(2000)

Before he began working on Dark Days, dedicated director Marc Singer lived amongst his homeless subjects for months. It is probably because of this time he spent gaining their trust that the film offers such an intimate look into their world. Though to say Dark Days is a documentary about homeless people is somewhat of a misstatement; the individuals in the film had actually erected a subterranean shantytown within the rail tunnels of New York City, complete with running water and illicitly-procured electricity for kitchen appliances.


This is a world that is largely unknown and unobserved, which is why Dark Days is an invaluable record from an anthropological standpoint. Singer provides a unique record of this community living in one of the recesses of our society. Much of what is recorded in the modern era is done by the mass media, and the thought of a major corporation sending a correspondent into tunnels to entrench themselves into this intimidating world is improbable at the least.

The story behind the camera is nearly as compelling as the narrative of the film itself. Singer’s crew was a distant departure from the unionized labor force of most cinematic productions. He empowered the denizens of this homeless camp by teaching them to be riggers, gaffers, grips, and even camera operators (a detail somehow omitted from the film itself). Considering this fact, it’s amazing that he managed to attain correct exposure, particularly given the inherent difficulty of shooting in such a dark environment.

Dark Days was shot in black and white. The grainy 16mm film suits the bleak tone of the doc. Considering his modest finances, it is surprising that he decided to work in film in general rather than video. When Singer’s budget began to dwindle, an insider at the Kodak company supplied him with nominally damaged film for free. Were it not for this act of generosity, Singer may not have been able to complete his picture.



DJ Shadow, notorious for declining licensing solicitations, agreed to lend his music to the film. His music is an incredible fit for the soundtrack. Furthermore, his name added legitimacy to this independent film made by a rookie filmmaker.

The collectivist nature of the film is a big reason why it is so extraordinary. Evidently Singer’s very motivation for making Dark Days was to help the tunnel dwellers financially. In the end, the audience is treated to a conclusion so unbelievable that it would befit a Hollywood blockbuster.

trailer * buy it here

Trivial Tidbits:

• Dark Days was awarded The Freedom of Expression Award, The Cinematography Award (Documentary) and The Audience Award (Documentary) at the Sundance Film Festival.
• Singer was born in London, England.
  

Trivial Epilogue:

BBC interview with Singer