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

This Film Is Not Yet Rated

Director: Kirby Dick
(2006)

Kirby Dick is a valiant filmmaker. With This Film is Not Yet Rated, he takes on the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the organization that administers the film ratings system used in the U.S. It is an institution whose members include the major Hollywood studios that serve as the overlords for the very industry that Dick works for. In This Film..., he exposes shocking revelations about the rating system and the MPAA itself.

The MPAA holds unthinkable power. They dictate in large part what the audiences will be for any film that seeks wide distribution. In effect, they are helping to mold the collective unconscious of the entire country. This small group of essentially inconsequential people is dictating a certain moral code based on what they personally deem to be appropriate. For instance, by giving more restrictive ratings to films that contain sexual content compared to those that contain violent content (as they often do), they are sending a message that violence is acceptable, and sex is not. There are further incongruities such as those between ratings for films that contain female orgasms and those that contain male orgasms.

Kirby Dick (via cbc.ca)

The hypocrisy is not limited to a movie’s content. There are even discrepancies amongst the ratings process for independent films compared to those released by major Hollywood studios. A major studio, upon receiving a restrictive rating, may get notes on specific ways to reedit the film in order to achieve a lower rating. Meanwhile, independent films, such as cinematic masterpiece Orgazmo, are given NC-17 ratings for vague reasons like a "general sexual tone."

Dick hires a quirky P.I., Becky Altringer, to track down the identities of the MPAA raters. While this endeavor initially seems like superfluous filler, the investigation does offer intriguing insight. While the MPAA states that the board is composed of everyday parents with children between 5 and 17, it was revealed that many of the board members have children over 18 or no children at all, and not one of the board members is under the age of 40.



This article only skims the surface in terms of revelations about the MPAA. Dick’s investigative work is an incredible success. However, at times Dick’s style is questionable. The film is laden with cheesy graphics and other gimmicks. They were perhaps intended to help draw the audience into the film, but in action they just undermine the sobering message.

A vital element in this discourse is the ability to watch clips that pushed ratings to NC-17, and This Film is Not Yet Rated features many of those clips. This is a quintessential example of the use of the Fair Use doctrine, which allows the use of copyrighted material for purposes of analysis without requiring consent from the rights holders. Were it not for that doctrine, Dick would presumably not have been allowed to license the clips for a film that criticizes aspects of the film industry.

By exposing the corrupt practices of the organization, he may be biting the hand that feeds him. But in doing so, he earned the respect of audiences (including a standing ovation at Sundance). Featuring interview with John Waters, Matt Stone, Mary Harron, Kimberly Peirce, Atom Egoyan, and Kevin Smith, This Film... will be appreciated by any cinephile.

official film site * trailer * buy it here

Trivial Tidbits:

• The MPAA was headed by Washington insider Jack Valenti for 38 years (1966 - 2004)
• List of Movies with NC-17 rating

Trivial Epilogue:

This past summer, the MPAA continued to find itself amidst controversy: First the Holocaust Film, Now Pat Tillman Documentary Gets "R" Rating

Trekkies

Director: Roger Nygard
(1997)

It was Mark Twain who mused, “Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities. Truth isn't.” Documentaries are often captivating because they highlight some of the more unbelievable corners of our society. Trekkies is a glorious character-driven documentary about the whimsical world of Star Trek fanatics.

Trekkies (or Trekkers, depending on who you ask) come from all walks of life, and a motley sample of them are featured in the film; the juror who showed up to court in her Starfleet uniform and insists on being called commander; the dentist who dubbed his office “Starfleet Dental” and forced his assistants to dress in Star Trek garb; the Klingon community; the Brent Spiner fanatic (“Spiner Femme”) who has scores of strikingly similar pictures of the actor speaking on stage that she keeps in a fire-proof safe.



One of the main characters of the film was Gabriel Köerner (featured in the video clip above), a teenaged Trekkie who seemed to exhibit a healthy obsession with the films, perhaps because adolescents can get away with more fanatical interests. His appreciation for Star Trek fueled his curiosity and inspired him to design a three-dimensional spacecraft on his home computer and start a club at his school that sought to produce a Star Trek film of their own. Not surprisingly, after the film’s release, Köerner was able to parlay his hobby into a career. He went on to become a successful visual effects artist, and even accomplished the ultimate dream by working on the series finale of Star Trek: Enterprise.

Director Roger Nygard avoids editorializing about the mental state of his subjects. In fact, the majority of Trekkies are portrayed as intelligent professionals who happen to have a love for the Gene Roddenberry franchise. However, by virtue of them simply appearing on camera, some of the hard-core fanatics in the film come across as unhealthily obsessed, or deranged nearly to the point of psychosis. While this is a very small group, it is this minority that many people associate with all Star Trek fans.

Inside the Starfleet Dental office

Denise Crosby was enlisted to “host” the film. Because Crosby starred as Security Chief Tasha Yar on the first season of Star Trek: Then Next Genereation (TNG), she is well known to Star Trek fans. This probably helped the Trekkies feel more comfortable in interviews, and helped them to open up on camera.

Character-driven documentaries are some of the most entertaining films out there. Trekkies does not disappoint, featuring individuals that could have been created for a Christopher Guest mockumentary (a la Best In Show & A Mighty Wind). It’s a hilarious look at some of the most dedicated fans in the world. It is sure to entertain, even if you have no idea who Captain James T. Kirk is.

official film site

buy it here

Trivial Tidbits:

• "Filking" is a term to describe playing or writing music about Star Trek
  
• Evidently Al Gore is a Trekkie: "He watched the show more than he studied, according to his Harvard University roommate Tommy Lee Jones."

Nanook of the North

Documentary film icon Robert Joseph Flaherty (1884-1951) started his career as an explorer and prospector in the remote Hudson Bay region of northeastern Canada. Before his third expedition to the area, his boss, railroad tycoon William Mackenzie, serendipitously suggested he bring a camera with him to document the unfamiliar territory. Flaherty embraced the idea, shooting hours of incredible footage of the native Inuit people. The ensuing film, Nanook of The North (1922), is regarded as the first ever feature-length documentary.



Flaherty quickly ascertained the mechanisms of cinema. He realized that if he were to capture shots such as reverse angles, close-ups, and various deliberate camera movements, he would be able to edit them together to offer a hyper-realistic vision of reality that was unknown to audiences of that time. We take these sequences for granted today, but Flaherty was one of the first to master how to use film as a means of communication.

It has been the day of days. Morning came clear and warm. Some twenty walrus lay sleeping on the rocks. Approached to within 100 ft & filmed with telephoto lens. Nan stalking quarry with harpoon - within 20 ft they rose in alarm and tumbled toward the sea. Nan's harpoon landed but the quarry succeeded in reaching the water. Then commenced a battle royal - & Esk straining for their lives on the harpoon line at water's edge - this quarry like a huge fish floundering - churning in the sea - The remainder of the herd hovered around - their "Ok ok!" resounding - one great bull even came in to quarry & locked horns in attempt to rescue - I filmed and filmed and filmed - The men - calling me to end the struggle by rifle - so fearful were they about being pulled into sea.

Robert Flaherty
September 26, 1920

Yet he did not offer assistance with his firearm. He wanted to portray the men the way they had lived in generations past, so he continued to shoot film as they struggled with the harpooned beast on the water's edge. Much of the film exhibits elements of Romanticism in this manner. While this philosophy has garnered some criticism, Flaherty would certainly not be the last filmmaker to attempt to pass off a slightly distorted truth as reality.

Trivial Tidbits:

• Flaherty Island, one of the Belcher Islands in Hudson Bay, is named in his honor.

Quote Source:

• Barnouw, Erik. Documentary: A History of the Non-Fiction Film. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.

When You're Strange

Director: Tom DiCillo
(2010)

When You're Strange is billed as an objective portrayal of The Doors. Manzarek, Krieger, and Densmore all avoided involvement in the production of the film in order to preserve an honest representation of the band. Prior to its release, the only cinematic record of the band was Oliver Stone’s 1991 biopic, which was heavily criticized for its factual inaccuracies. Keyboardist Ray Manzarek noted, “This is the anti-Oliver Stone. This will be the true story of the Doors."



All of the footage found in the film was shot between 1966 and 1971. DiCillo was wise to avoid the temptation to shoot interviews with the surviving members of the group: an easy to generate content for such a film. Jim Morrison himself will always be remembered as a youthful figure. By not including any recently shot talking heads with the other members of the band, he allows the audience to fully remember them the way they had been in their 1960s prime.

When You’re Strange was screened at the 2009 Sundance Film Festival, and had originally featured narration by DiCillo himself. While receiving overall positive reviews, audiences criticized the director’s droning monotone. The film was then redubbed using the voice of Johnny Depp in advance of the April 2010 release. Depp’s velvety voice would be a benefit to any narration, as it certainly is to this film.

The film portrays Morrison as an enigma, a loose canon, a heavy drinker, an outsider who fed off of the love of the audience. One takeaway is how stressful it must have been to be a non-Jim Morrison member of the doors. Playing a riff over and over as Jim lay on the floor of the stage, hopeful that he’ll get back on his feet and continue singing.

Some have criticized the film for its lack of fresh content. However, When You’re Strange does contain rare footage from Morrison’s 1969 experimental film: HWY: An American Pastoral. Furthermore, the film is edited brilliantly in a way that offers a comprehensive history of the band, and an analysis of Morrison that had previously been unavailable.

official film site

Trivial Tidbits:

• "If the doors of perception were cleansed, every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite.” -William Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell
• Morrison was sentenced to 6 months in prison and a $500 fine for his alleged antics at the infamous March 1, 1969 concert in Miami, but died in Paris before he could serve the sentence.
  

An Inconvenient Truth

Director: Davis Guggenheim
(2006)

Lauded by critics, widely viewed internationally (grossing nearly $50 million worldwide), and honored with a panoply of accolades, An Inconvenient Truth is perhaps the most important film of the last decade. It effectively increased worldwide awareness about the perils of global warming in an entertaining and straightforward manner that could not have been achieved by scientific journals alone.



The film’s protagonist is one of the reasons the film was such a success, as he offers the audience an emotional connection to the film. Albert Arnold "Al" Gore, Jr. is viewed by many as a cult hero following his ill-fated 2000 presidential election bid (in which he f*ing won the “popular vote” by half a million ballots). An Inconvenient Truth is just as much an overview of his career as it is about environmental calamity. It’s a moving scrapbook, in which Guggenheim strings together formats ranging from 35mm film and HD to JPEGs and even VHS tape. In an interview with StudioDaily, he noted, “the only thing we didn’t use was charcoal drawings.”

The former Vice President thrives as an ambassador for the environment. Gore makes the claim that he delivered his now infamous presentation on global warming over a thousand times. By featuring that lecture in the film, he ensured that his audience would grow exponentially.

Gorian Graph (via NOAA)

What constitutes a great film is obviously a subjective criterion. An Inconvenient Truth was bestowed the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature on February 25, 2007. While it may not be the most innovative documentary of 2006, nor that with the highest superior aesthetic, the statue was likely bestowed on the film because of its consummate use of documentary film as a method of broadcasting global issues.

Gore concludes the film by saying:

Each one of us is a cause of global warming, but each one of us can make choices to change that with the things we buy, the electricity we use, the cars we drive; we can make choices to bring our individual carbon emissions to zero. The solutions are in our hands, we just have to have the determination to make it happen. We have everything that we need to reduce carbon emissions, everything but political will. But in America, the will to act is a renewable resource.

official film site * trailer * buy it here

Trivial Tidbits:

• First documentary to win two Oscars: 2007 Academy Awards for Best Documentary Feature and Best Original Song for Melissa Etheridge's "I Need to Wake Up"

Trivial Epilogue:

• Gore interview with grist.org: http://www.grist.org/article/roberts2/
• "Long ago I decided that global warming must be real, because Al Gore's movie made money...the market has spoken." - Stephen Colbert on The Report

The $20,000,000 Club

Only 6 documentary films have cracked the $20 million mark at the box office. Data retrieved from BoxOfficeMojo.com;

1. Fahrenheit 9/11: $119,194,771 (2004)
2. March of the Penguins: $77,437,223 (2005)
3. Earth: $32,011,576 (2009)
4. Sicko: $24,540,079 (2007)
5. An Inconvenient Truth: $24,146,161 (2006)
6. Bowling for Columbine: $21,576,018 (2002)

A look at the top twenty:

(click to enlarge)

For some perspective, Fahrenheit 9/11 (as of the moment I type this) is the 332th highest grossing film of all time in the domestic box office with $119,194,771. This is eight spots below I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry at #324, which cracked the $120,000,000 mark.

Hoop Dreams

Director: Steve James
(1994)

Generally viewed as the greatest documentary of the 1990s (if not all time), Hoop Dreams is an epic look at two basketball wonders from inner-city Chicago; William Gates and Arthur Agee. The film tracks the most formidable years of their lives, from the time they are literally scouted by high school teams in middle school through their first year in college. In the end the film transcends the sport of basketball. It is an epic narrative of their lives, their families, and their communities.



Both boys are recruited by St. Joseph High School, a Catholic, predominantly white high school in an affluent neighborhood. The school is both culturally and physically far from their own neighborhoods. They have a three hour commute everyday. Before their sophomore year, tuition issues arise. While William finds fortune in the form of a sponsor (who oddly happens to be the President of the Encyclopedia Britannica Corporation), Arthur is forced to drop out of school because his parents can’t keep up with the expenses. He ends up attending Marshall Public High School. This offers an affecting contrast between the two protagonists.

Gene Pingatore, the well-intentioned drillmaster coach from St. Joseph, barks at his team to “think about the game on the way to the game” before sitting in the front seat of the bus in front of his stoic student-athletes. Cut to: loud mayhem on the Marshall High School bus, including kids playing cards in the back. It feels like a romanticized account of contrasted bus rides, but it’s all real. In fact, if this film were fiction, much of it would be dismissed as too unbelievable.


There are certain moments that were serendipitously caught on film. For instance, when Arthur’s vacant father unexpectedly shows up at the courts, he briefly plays with his son before walking off to the far side. The camera then captures him brazenly making a crack deal in plain view of his son. Other moments seem to magically fall into place, like when William’s mother is solemnly sitting in the O.R. waiting room as a melancholic Phil Collins track plays diagetically on the radio.

Time has aged this film beautifully. Some of the characters in the film, who often seem to be caricatures of themselves, have become even more exaggerated over time.

William with his math teacher at St. Joseph High School

*SPOILER ALERT* The filmmakers chose the perfect two kids for their project. Both found some success on the court. Amazingly, Arthur and the Marshall Commandos actually make it all the way to the state championships, but come up short in the final game. It was cathartic to watch the Commandos lose. Not out of some kind of sadistic joy, but seeing them lose was reality. In real life, making it to the state championship game is a victory in and of itself. Rather than a Hollywood tale, in which the protagonist’s team would have undoubtedly, unquestionably, positively won the state championships (and the national title in the sequel, etc.).

Arthur cleaning his kicks. You should see this kid's Trapper Keeper.

High Praise from Roger Ebert:

Many filmgoers are reluctant to see documentaries, for reasons I've never understood; the good ones are frequently more absorbing and entertaining than fiction. "Hoop Dreams," however, is not only a documentary. It is also poetry and prose, muckraking and expose, journalism and polemic. It is one of the great moviegoing experiences of my lifetime.

Trivial Tidbits:

• Hoop Dreams was not nominated for the best feature documentary at the Academy Awards. This caused such an uproar that the selection process was modified thereafter. (source)
• However, it was nominated for best editing (lost to Forrest Gump)
• In 2007, the International Documentary Association (IDA) named Hoop Dreams the No. 1 documentary in film history

Epilogue:

• Vintage Siskel and Ebert on Hoop Dreams

Berlinger Must Hand Over Some Footage

In May, we here at DocZine reported on the lawsuit of multinational energy corporation vs. filmmaker. Chevron had brought suit against director Joe Berlinger in an effort to subpoena over 600 hours of unused footage from his 2009 film Crude, which itself was a film about a court case in which the Ecuadorian people sued Chevron (then Texaco) over the pollution of the Amazon Rain Forest. Chevron believed the outtakes from the film would expose corruption on behalf of the Ecuadorian legal team.

Chevron had won the case for the footage, but Berlinger was granted his request for an appeal in June.

Joe Berlinger (via filmmakermagazine.com)

Yesterday an appeals court ruled that Berlinger had to turn over some, but not all, of the footage. According to the LA times, “While the judges said a full opinion would follow, they did order that Berlinger give Chevron footage not appearing in ‘Crude’ showing counsel for the plaintiffs in the environmental lawsuit (who discuss trial strategy in the film); experts in the proceeding (some of whom Chevron has accused of partiality); and current or former Ecuadorean government officials (which the oil company says colluded with the plaintiffs' lawyers).”

Evidently this was a fair decision, as both sides seemed pleased with the compromise. Chevron got the footage they were looking for. Berlinger remarked, "We are extremely pleased with today's results."

For those that may be interested in yesterday's appeal proceedings, courthousenews.com has a detailed account.

We Live In Public

Director: Ondi Timoner
(2008)

The internet boom of the late 1990s saw many young entrepreneurs quickly amass staggering wealth. Josh Harris was at the forefront of that rush, eventually netting more than $80 million with his company JupiterResearch and later the internet television network Pseudo.com. We Live in Public portrays the peaks and valleys in the career of Harris, "the greatest Internet pioneer you've never heard of."

Josh Harris (image via boingboing)

Harris was an eccentric visionary who used his fortune to fund human experiments. Just before the turn of the millennium, he invited 100 artists to live in an underground bunker in New York City outfitted with webcams to document their every move in a project called "Quiet: We Live in Public." This compound featured Japanese-style sleeping pods as well as a shooting range and an interrogation room in which the occupants were asked deeply personal, probing questions by a highly aggressive interviewer. Harris sought to foreshadow the fact that one day, the internet would put increased pressure on our lives by completely eradicating our privacy. Fortunately, the fire department shut down the project before anyone lost it.

He imagined a kind of Orwellian dystopia in which every second of our lives would be captured on video and put in the public domain for the world to examine. Today, many facets of our lives are on display on various websites. But the future has brought a different kind of transmission than Harris had imagined. By and large, we have control over what is published for the world to see. We are the publishing supervisors of our Facebook pages and the editors-in-chief of our YouTube channels. Perhaps Harris’ vision of an totalitarian future simply hasn’t yet materialized.



After the collapse of "Quiet: We Live in Public," Harris was clearly not satisfied with the results of his experiment. He immediately put his hypothesis to the test once again, this time putting himself under the microscope. He outfitted a New York loft with 30 motion-controlled cameras (including one in the fridge, litter box and toilet bowl) and 66 microphones and moved in with his new girlfriend, Tanya Corrin. After a “giddy” first month, the honeymoon quickly faded. Harris and Corrin became so distant to the point where they would sit in different rooms and talk to their viewers in chat rooms more than each other. Eventually this pressure cooker exploded in a very ugly way, for all the world to see. Timoner postulates:

I think that's an important lesson; the internet, as wonderful as it is, is not an intimate medium. It's just not. If you want to keep something intimate and if you want to keep something sacred, you probably shouldn't post it.

The film opens with an uninviting video of Harris saying goodbye to his dying mother. It then jumps to a history of the internet before moving on to focus on Harris and his endeavors. Some may see the film as off balance, but the documentary is successful for its perseverance if nothing else. Timoner captured footage from every unique venture of Harris’ life over the past 15 years, including his escape as an apple orchard farmer in Columbia County, NY. With 15 years worth of footage on any oddball such as Harris, one could make a compelling film. Each one of his undertakings could be the subject of an entertaining film in and of themselves, but Harris’ eccentric persona brings it all together.

official film site

Trivial Tidbits:

• We Live in Public won the Grand Jury Prize award in the U.S. documentary category at the 2009 Sundance Film Festival
• In the early days of the internet, videos streamed at 1 frame/second

Epilogue:

• If you have seen the film, you might be interested in this video: Crazed fan of pseudo.com attacks founder Josh Harris after screening of We Live in Public. Though, seeing as he has recently said that Pseudo itself was a fake company, I wouldn't be surprised if that attack was staged as well.

Jesus Camp

Directors: Heidi Ewing, Rachel Grady
(2006)

One could argue that there is nothing more reprehensible than entrepreneurs profiting off of individuals under the guise of offering guaranteed salvation. Jesus Camp offers a look into a world in which greed hounds profit from a business that essentially brainwashes young, innocent children into believing that they are soldiers of the faith. Becky Fisher, who runs the camp, describes:

I can go into a playground of kids that don't know anything about Christianity, lead them to the Lord in a matter of, just no time at all, and just moments later they can be seeing visions and hearing the voice of God, because they're so open. They are so usable in Christianity.

In a most un-Kierkegaardian custom, belief in God is not a choice for the children in this community. They are indoctrinated to “just have faith” from a young age. Anyone who questions that belief is seen as a pariah, which would be as if anyone who questioned the government was dubbed unpatriotic (obviously a very dangerous proposition).

Not learning how to engage in a debate. (via Cinema de Merde)

It seems as though that is how the Evangelical community engages in politics. It is not difficult to comprehend why they are behind certain Right Wing principles, such as anti-choice, anti-stem cell research, and anti-evolution. While those positions may seem reprehensible, it’s what they believe in. Yet they accept, and even embrace, the entire Right Wing package, regardless of how unchristian it is; hawkish foreign policy, pro death penalty, and unrestricted gun rights. The reason for that lack of skepticism may be based in the fact that from a young age they are taught to just accept whatever those in power tell them.

This is particularly troubling considering Ted Haggard, the former president of the National Association of Evangelicals, who evidently used to speak with George W. Bush and his advisers on a weekly basis. Mr. Haggard comes off as a cocksure believer in Jesus Camp (refer to video below). Considering the frequency that he spoke with the former commander-in-chief, he probably had considerable influence over our nation’s policy. However, in a testament to the fact that this way of life noxiously drives repression, shortly after the release of Jesus Camp, former gay prostitute Mike Jones alleged that “Pastor Ted” paid him for sex at regular intervals over a three-year period and had also purchased and used crystal meth.


Skepticism is a vital mechanism for developing a healthy intellect. There’s no telling what kind of effect this indoctrination will have on these children. It certainly isn’t helping them to value, let alone develop, any sense of critical thought. It’s bad enough that these children are subject to such blatant brainwashing, but the fact that they are also mainly homeschooled should be downright criminal.

The filmmakers offer a dissenting voice in the form of Mike Papantonio, a talkshow host on the Air America radio network. However, his perspective is not even necessary. The Evangelical protagonists featured in the film come across in a negative light by virtue of their own words, despite the fact that the filmmakers claim that Jesus Camp does not have any agenda.

Becky Fischer doesn’t even let these kids read about that evil pagan warlock Harry Potter! I hope they at least think for themselves on that front.

official film site

Trivial Tidbits:

• Fischer shut down the camp in 2006, citing vandalism and safety concerns
  
• Lost to An Inconvenient Truth for best doc at the 79th Academy Awards

Epilogue:

• Bill Maher on Jesus Camp

Berliner Granted Appeal

Joe Berliner (via tonic)

The NY Times reports that Joe Berliner was granted a stay to the subpoenia issued on May 6 that would have forced the filmmaker to turn over more than 600 hours of unused footage from his film Crude to the Chevron corporation.

Crude documents a lawsuit against Chevron on behalf of the Ecuadorian people, who claim that the oil giant polluted their country's water. Chevron is seeking access to the footage that didn’t make the final cut of the film because they believe it may help them as they try to have the lawsuit dismissed.

In an interview with the Times, Maura Wogan, Mr. Berlinger’s counsel, said that if her client had not been granted this stay, “he would have been forced to turn over this material before the appeal was heard – he would have, in effect, lost his right to an appeal.”

A trial date has not yet been set for the expedited appeal, but one is expected by mid-July.

Exit Through The Gift Shop

Director: Banksy
(2010)

This is essentially the story of Thierry Guetta, an ebullient Frenchman with a penchant for videography whose life completely changed when he serendipitously discovered his cousin, Invader, creating colorful tile mosaics of vintage video game characters meant for illicit installation on the streets of Paris. This opened the door to a world that Guetta would entrench himself in for the next decade.

Guetta forced his way deep into the street art subculture, and captured mesmerizing footage of street artist icons Shepard Fairey (who gained mainstream attention thanks to his Barack Obama “HOPE” portrait) and British artist Banksy (who has remained an enigma despite the fact that his oeuvre has fetched a fortune and captured the imagination of people across the world). Guetta proved to be an invaluable asset to the community, acting not only as a videographer to document the illicit installations, but also as an assistant, chauffeur, navigator, and lookout.



Midway through the film, the focus changes onto Guetta himself, who takes on the moniker Mr. Brainwash and masterminds an art show of his own under Banksy’s commission. While many docs change their focus midway through, they often lose their sense of balance as a result. Exit Through the Gift Shop manages to shift it’s spotlight in a way that harmonizes the film as a whole – evoking questions about the meaning, value, and commercialization of art in general.

Mr. Brainwash prepares for his exhibition, titled “Life is Beautiful,” with the mindset of quantity over quality. Much of his work was produced by mindlessly spray painting canvases or scanning and photoshoping existing images, all executed by an army of minions. Some of his pieces so closely resemble the work of his inspirations that Mr. B comes across as a copycat creator. Yet, with some clever marketing, he defied the odds. He made the cover of LA Weekly in June of 2008, had over 7,000 people attend his “Life is Beautiful” show on its opening night, and in the end, he netted nearly a million dollars in sales.

Banksy clearly gave rise to Mr. Brainwash. While Guetta claims he put everything he had into the exhibition (he even refinanced his mortgage) it seems likely that Banksy put some of his own capital into the project, ensuring that Mr. B could afford the smoke and mirrors to dupe the Los Angeles scene. Once could argue that Banksy has such an adept understanding of the art world that he knew he would be able to ensure that Mr. Brainwash would be a success, and therefore essentially scripted the end of this documentary by playing on the credulous nature of art connoisseurs.

“I can’t believe you morons actually buy this shit” via WebUrbanist

Banksy himself has shown contempt with commercialization in the past, including the above piece which he published to his website shortly after some of his own pieces were auctioned by Sotheby’s in Feb 2007. So it’s not unimaginable that he would direct a film that denigrates the idea of making money off of street art. From The NY Times:

Asked whether a film that takes shots at the commercialization of street art would devalue his own work, Banksy wrote: “It seemed fitting that a film questioning the art world was paid for with proceeds directly from the art world. Maybe it should have been called ‘Don’t Bite the Hand that Feeds You.’ ”

There is widespread speculation regarding the validity and scope of the film being a hoax. Perhaps most intriguing is the theory of blogger Rebecca Cannon, who postulated that:

If Guetta is a hoax, there also exists the possibility that these artworks are actually produced by Banksy himself, in a style deliberately intended to suggest inferior artistic skill. Should the hoax ever be proven, and Banksy’s hand revealed to be the creator of the works, a further hoax on the art world may unfold in which Banksy is found to have tricked collectors into passing-up the opportunity to purchase his works for so little, rather than having paid too much for Guetta’s.

Considering the fact that Banksy has kept his identity unknown for years, it is unlikely that the full truth regarding this film will ever be unmasked. In the end, it’s inconsequential. Hoax or not, Exit Through the Gift Shop is, it’s a thoroughly entertaining film.

official film site

Trivial Tidbits:

• In 2004, Banksy put up one of his own paintings in the Louvre (a Mona Lisa replica with a yellow smiley face)
  
• In an interview with The Guardian, Banksy revealed that his parents think he is "a painter and decorator"
  

Joe Berlinger Versus Chevron

Joe Berlinger’s Crude (2009), which details a lawsuit between the Ecuadorian people and the oil corporation Chevron over the pollution of the Amazon Rain Forest, has found itself to be in the middle of a contentious lawsuit. Chevron recently brought suit against Berlinger, demanding to see all of the footage that didn't make it into the final cut of the film. Reuters reports that on May 6th, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan ordered Berlinger to turn over 600 hours of raw footage from the cutting room floor to Chevron.

A still from Crude

The original case unfolded 17 years ago in Ecuadorian courts. Chevron (then Texaco) was found accountable for environmental damage in the country, and as a result faced liabilities of up to $27 billion. Chevron now believes that the unseen documentary footage may contain evidence of various transgressions on the part of the Ecuadorean legal team that may enable them to seek arbitration. Berlinger’s footage could be used as evidence against the Ecuadorians.

At issue here are one’s rights as a journalist. As an investigative documentary filmmaker, Berlinger should be granted Reporters’ Privilege under the First Amendment. Berlinger’s attorney, Maura Wogan, said that the ruling threatens "great harm to documentary filmmakers and investigative reporters everywhere."

…
An outcry from the documentary film community ensued, including a May 7 NY Times ArtsBeat blog post featuring quotations from an outspoken Michael Moore and a May 12 open letter from the International Documentary Association, signed by the IDA’s Board of Directors and over 150 filmmakers, including Alex Gibney, Michael Moore and Morgan Spurlock. An excerpt:

While we commend Judge Kaplan for stating "that the qualified journalists' privilege applies to Berlinger's raw footage", we are nonetheless dismayed both by Chevron's attempts to go on a "fishing expedition" into the edit rooms and production offices of a fellow documentary filmmaker without any particular cause or agenda, and the judge's allowance of said intentions. What's next, phone records and e-mails?

…
The Times reports that last Friday, May 21, Berlinger was granted an appeal by Federal Appeals Court Judge Denny Chin. A court date was set for June 8.

The line from the IDA letter regarding phone records and emails concisely highlights the issue at hand. A filmmakers footage is akin to a reporter's notebook. It is private, and it should be protected by the law.

The implications of this case can not be overestimated. If the footage from filmmakers can be open to a subpoena this easily, it will make certain documentary filmmakers think twice about undertaking range of projects of a political nature and it may intimidate whistle-blowers from coming forward to expose illegal activities. The doc film community eagerly awaits the developments of the trial.

It Might Get Loud

Director: Davis Guggenheim
(2008)

It Might Get Loud focuses on the careers and stylings of Jack White, The Edge, and Jimmy Page. The film is mildly entertaining, but only to the nerdiest of rock fans. It has the feel of a well-produced VH1 special.



The best part of the film is at the end, when the trio is jamming to "The Weight" by The Band. The Edge says, "Oh, I've been playing the wrong chord the whole time. It's not E minor. It's B minor." To which Jimmy Page replies, "Is it? Oh shit." Other than that splash of realism, it's an awkward affair.

Trivial Tidbits:

• It Might Get Loud premiered at the 2008 Toronto Film Festival

Visionaries

Director: Chuck Workman
(2010)

The neglected genre of experimental film has been acknowledged in Visionaries, a documentary that recently saw its debut at the 2010 Tribeca Film Festival. This retrospective, directed by Oscar winning director Chuck Workman, showcases many of the icons of the movement and features over 100 clips of influential films.

Workman, who has made a career out of creating the montages seen during the Academy Awards, brings the mystifying genre to life by weaving together film excerpts and interviews with various filmmakers, including; Kenneth Anger (donning a NY Rangers jersey); Hollywood patriarch Robert Downey Sr. (a clip from Pound, featuring a 5-year-old Robert Jr., was a crowd pleasing moment); Austrian filmmaker Peter Kubelka; prominent critic Amy Taubin; Ken Jacobs (who started the experimentally-focused Cinema department at then Harpur College (now Binghamton University) in 1969); avant-garde cinema historian P. Adams Sitney; surrealist Palme d’Or winner David Lynch (briefly); and American filmmaker Su Friedrich (who was in attendance for the Q&A following the screening). Brilliant vintage interviews of the late, great Stan Brakhage, Andy Warhol, and Norman Mailer were some of the most compelling moments in the film.



Following the screening, Workman talked about how grateful he was that the featured filmmakers gave him permission to use clips of their films, despite the fact that they would be taken out of their context. Workman did a great job of delving into some of the techniques and motivations of the filmmakers, which all shared a common anti-Hollywood sentiment and style.

"The godfather of American avant-garde cinema," Jonas Mekas, was highlighted in the second half of the film. His work in founding the New York-based Anthology Film Archives has been indispensable in the conservation of experimental films. Preservation is a concern within this art form, particularly considering how unprofitable experimental films tend to be. However, while the early portion of the film was a balanced retrospective, this final portion feels like a standalone short film dedicated to Mekas. This may have been better suited as a much shorter epilogue at the end of the film rather than the focus of the last chunky chapter, which only ended up throwing the film off balance.

While the content of Visionaries was incredibly inspirational, the documentary itself was flawed. Workman frequently employed a scrolling text across the top of the screen that fought for the audience’s attention. A voice-over would’ve been more appropriate, rather than forcing the audience to decide between watching Meshes of the Afternoon and reading a racing Maya Deren quote.

Su Friedrich, Chuck Workman, and Jon Gartenberg speaking after the screening

In the end, the content of Visionaries is inspiring. Workman should be praised for introducing this widely unknown movement to a wider audience. However, the construction of the film itself leaves something to be desired. Visionaries may be likened to a mundane book on the Dadaist Art Movement – after skimming the book, praise would be given to the artists, not the editors or even the book itself.

Trivial Tidbits:

• Avant-garde icon Stan Brakhage was professor to Matt Stone and Trey Parker (of South Park fame) during his tenure at the University of Colorado
• Andy Warhol's Sleep (1963) is a film which consists of a long take of his close friend sleeping for over 5 hours

Wildlife Docs May Violate Animal Privacy

British news outlet The Guardian recently pointed to a study that argues wildlife documentaries may infringe on animals' right to privacy. The author of the study, Brett Mills, is a lecturer in film studies at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England. He notes, "we can never really know if animals are giving consent, but they do often engage in forms of behavior which suggest they'd rather not encounter humans." His rationing seems flawed. Those animals that avoid human contact probably just have good survival instincts.

That being said, there is a worthy issue here. Filmmakers need to develop minimally invasive methods such as the use of hidden and minute cameras not only in order to protect the privacy of creatures, but also to ensure an accurate representation of what happens behind closed cave doors. Accuracy is vital because the footage can be used as research that may be used to help the animals in the future. But in the end, there are more pressing issues to take up - if anything, Mills should be fighting against those animal prisons that attract human gawkers throughout the world.

Trivial Tidbits:

• According to Box Office Mojo, March of the Penguins is the highest grossing wildlife doc, grossing a total of $77,437,223 after an opening weekend of $137,492 in 4 theaters
  

Nerdcore Rising

Director: Negin Farsad, Kim Gatewood (co-director)
(2008)

A chronicling of nerdcore hip hop artist MC Frontalot's 2006 national tour. No true nerd will be disappointed with this film, from the Magic: The Gathering tutorial to the incessant Chewbacca's Wookieespeak. MC Frontalot's entourage is gloriously awkward at times, but this is just an instinctive reaction by nerds when a camera is pointed at them.

Nerdcore Rising is part of a cultural shift in which the formerly disparaging term “nerd” is embraced by the individuals in this subculture. Despite this adaptation, nerds are still seen as outsiders in certain circles. This is evident as MC Frontalot strives to gain respect in the greater hip hop genre (along with more pressing goals, like earning a living via this art form).

The film features insightful interviews with unnerdy hip hop producer Prince Paul, 90s nerd “Weird Al” Yankovic, comical nerd Brian Posehn, fellow nerdcorer mc chris, Penny Arcade entrepreneurial nerds Mike Krahulik and Jerry Holkins, and even a brief interview with the great (punk nerd?) Jello Biafra.

The tour provides an excellent framework for the film. Their early performances are somewhat shaky and often in front of scant audiences, including a performance in Georgia in front of a downright befuddled crowd. The tour culminates with a performance with Minibosses in front of a massive audience at the Penny Arcade Expo in Seattle, ending the film with an encouraging sentiment.

official film site

Trivial Tidbits:

• The titular genre was coined by MC Frontalot in 2000 in the song "Nerdcore Hiphop"
• Nerdcore for Life is another documentary on the subject of nerdcore hip hop, also released in 2008