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.