Power Paths

Overall, I think this Power Paths raised a lot of issues that most Americans haven’t encountered concerning alternative energies and Native American rights.  But this doc had problems.  Mostly, because it was too short.

It covered a very large breadth.  I saw at least two stories here: first, the struggle of Navajo and Hopi to protect their land while creating jobs.  Second, the struggle of integrating alternative energy sources in the United States.

When discussing the power struggles within Navajo Nation, the doc bit off more than it could chew.   The relationship between the coal plant and  Navajo Nation was entirely confused.  For the first half of the film, the coal plant was painted as this wholly evil entity, which sucked away precious water and contaminated the air.  But when the coal plant was torn down, the removal of jobs hurt people even more. (Alethia talked a little about this in her post)

The relationship between the public and the governmental entities seemed a little fuzzy, too.  Activists were treated with respect and deference, whereas the elders were painted as corrupt.  But you don’t really buy it (More than a few of the audience members in the KLRU studio questioned this relationship).  The interviews with both the activists and the elders lack depth, and the audience doesn’t really get a firm grasp on the problem at hand.

In fact, a lot of the earlier footage outlining the water shortage invoked pity rather than genuine  sympathy, and I think the editing is to blame for that, and the lack of depth in the interviews.

I wasn’t expecting such extensive footage in Germany and the Netherlands, though.  There was tons of information about alternative energy there. Strangely, there seemed to be almost as much footage of international interviews as that in the United States.  The film did much better with its attempt at explaining the possibilities of alternative energies in the United States.

I think the real problem that all of this critique points to is that the filmmakers tried to cover too much in an hour.  There wasn’t enough footage covering  the Navajo/Hopi struggle, which is what audiences really care about.   There was no real central character whose life we successfully invaded in order to gain a greater understanding of the issue.

Unfortunately, since it was made for PBS, it had to fit within a very specific time frame.  With that in mind, I think it’s pretty remarkable that they were able to cover so much in such a short period of time.  But it lacked depth.

Mississippi Chicken

This wasn’t a film I enjoyed watching, but I think it was a good movie.

The tone of the film fit its content really well. It had a slow kind of sadness that never really went away, and you get the sense that nothing ever really changes in this world – which is why it was impossible to enjoy – tragedy after tragedy affected the community, and nothing was ever changed. Even after the small victory in the court, I felt disillusioned.

I think the reason I felt so disconnected with the film’s subjects was because it spent a lot of time telling the audience what happened rather than showing it.  The narration maintained a healthy distance between the audience and the film’s subjects.

I guess I wasn’t sure who I should be connecting with.  I felt like every time I really began to connect with Guillermina, the narration started up again and I wanted to know more about Anita.  Although Anita is a constant presence in the film, and she obviously deeply cares about the poultry workers, we never really see her emote.

The subject matter is compelling and the movie feels important…but the experience of watching it was like watching an absurdist play.  I still feel like I’m waiting for Godot.

 

 

Bomb It

This looks awesome.

Do any of you know of any screenings around here/ does anyone have the DVD?

The Last Waltz

This documentary felt kind of like a free pass into a members-only club.  But if you don’t care if you’re a member, it falls a little flat.  I went into the movie wanting to get to know the members of the band in a meaningful way, or to connect with their mission or their outlook.  Instead, I got to see some really great performances of famous songs, and hear a lot of disconnected anecdotes about what it’s like to be in the band.   It was kind of like a rock-history lesson.

The film consisted of the entirety of The Band’s final concert in 1976 (and two performances recorded in a studio) separated by brief snippets of interviews that Martin Scorsese completed with the band and its members.

There’s no doubt that these are really great performances by really famous performers, and they all seemed to be having a great time (except for maybe Joni Mitchell – she seemed a little bored…but then, she always did, didn’t she?) And each of the songs was beautifully shot, especially the studio recordings.

There were a few decisions I wish Scorsese had made differently. Especially in the beginning performances, Scorsese cuts back and forth between the faces of band members almost exclusively.  But the singing and the lyrics are only half the song;  By choosing to only show faces, you lack the great instrumental performances by the musicians.  I really wanted to see hands strumming guitars and sticks hitting drums and fingers beating piano keys, but they weren’t forthcoming.

The film gets better as it goes on, though.  The meat of the interviews comes out towards the end, when the band talks about why they play music and why they were quitting so early.  At one point, Rick Danko led Scorsese back into a recording booth, and when Scorsese started pestering him with questions, he answered tersely, as if the answer were implied, and turned on the music.  Then he just listened, and nodded his head in time.  Then it fades into an interview with Robert Robertson talking about a ‘musical cure.’  This sequence was by far the best in the film.

(also, I didn’t mind the jump cuts.)

I’m not a huge fan of The Band.  I know some of their songs (mostly because my best friend’s mother is totally in love with Robert Robertson), but I definitely don’t know their discography, and to me, they’re just a honky tonk band that liked to hang out with a bunch of famous white dudes.

It was just a really great concert doc.  Great for fans,  but lacks depth.

The ghost of Tupac flies through skies and over deserts.

After the screening, we talked a little about all the out-of-the-blue sky and sand dune shots that came at the beginning and end of the film.  They didn’t really bother me too much (they seemed like book-ends to me: kind of cheesy, but effective signposts) but a lot of people were really bothered by it.  And once I started to think about it, they do seem pretty out of place.  I wonder what the filmmaker was going for there?  At the beginning, these shots come in when Tupac is talking about broad, philosophical  subjects like how to lead a decent life.  But at the end, they come in right after he’s died.

It’s kind of eerie to hear him talking about his own death, and seeing a 1st-person POV shot  flying through clouds and over sand dunes seems to suggest that Tupac is speaking to us from the grave, as some speedy ghost that likes to fly around deserts just for the hell of it.  It puts the film in a whole new context to think of it like that, and I really, really don’t like it.

What do you guys think they were going for?  What was that?

It was a good movie, though.  I was a little disappointed when they didn’t mention Assata Shakur in the section that championed all the strong women in his life, but Brittany pointed out that she probably already in Cuba by the time Tupac was growing up (I think he was only 6 or 7 when Assata was exiled to Cuba), and she wasn’t really involved much in his life.

Narration and Science in Blue Vinyl

For a while, I couldn’t figure out why this movie rubbed me the wrong way.  But I think I’ve got it:  it’s the narration and the pseudo-science.

I usually don’t like listening to narration in flims, so I’m a little biased to begin with, but since this is a personal doc, I went into it thinking that I could make an exception.  Nonetheless, a lot of the narration bothered  me.  There were some parts when it seemed to ramble without any point, and sometimes the scenes would have worked better without the narration.  Take for example the scene in which the director watched Habitat for Humanity build and donate an all-vinyl house to a family in need.  She was able to get some really great footage, but really ruined the scene (in my mind) by telling the audience how great she was.   It just was not the right time, she said, to bring up the dangers of PVC. Obviously, when someone performs an extremely generous act, you shouldn’t taint its completion by saying “By the way, by using this donated vinyl, you’re poisoning the earth and sanctioning the cancers of vinyl workers all over the world.”  The footage was really powerful on its own, and didn’t need her commentary.

Then again…I find myself thinking I can change my own biases on the criterion that this is a “personal doc.”    But what makes me think I can just turn off the “I hate narration” switch in my brain?  More interestingly, what makes a personal doc?  I labeled Waltz with Bashir a personal doc, too, but now I’m starting to question it.  Just because the director of this film became its subject doesn’t mean the film is any more “personal” than Grey Gardens or King of Kong.  I think Ryan brought this up before, and it’s really hitting me now.  Thanks, Ryan.

But that’s not really what I wanted to blog about.

Another part of this doc that bugged me was the science involved in it.  I believe that vinyl chloride is bad for you, based on the dozens of deaths in Italy which ended in the law suit.  (The lawsuit was pretty well-documented in the film, but ) I found myself asking why vinyl chloride is bad for you.  What, specifically, in vinyl chloride causes people to develop cancer?  What happens in the bodies of those who come in contact with it on a daily basis?  She interviews quite a few scientists and seeming-experts who could probably have answered that question for her, yet she either neglects the question or she made the decision to keep it out of the film.  Likewise, she leaves out why Dioxin is toxic and how it harms humans.  I think this information would make the film stronger.

That said, I liked the film.  It was very informative, regardless of its shortcomings, and her raw tenacity is really impressive.

Aesthetics of Guantanamo

I really want to talk about the style that Road to Guantanamo was shot & edited.

The reenactments were incredibly realistic.  Even though these guys aren’t actors (at least two of them weren’t – they were actually held at Guantanamo), I think they did a great job with this rendition of their trip.  Additionally, the straightforwardness of the cinematography was really effective – no fancy lighting or practiced camera moves – it was shot like a doc.  It wouldn’t have been as effective if the reenactments were shot like a Hollywood film.  One scene, in particular, sticks in my brain:  the scene in Afghanistan where Shafiq, Asif, and Ruhel are walking around aimlessly, dodging bloody bodies at every turn the morning after a bombing.  The camera seems to follow naturally where a person’s eye would go – first to the characters we know, then it pans across the horizon to give the audience a good look at what exactly happened, then it pans down as the camera op walks past a man covered in blood.  It’s simple, but effective since it successfully preempts what the audience wants to see.  That was a really well-shot and well-cut scene.

But not all of the movie was so well-edited.  In fact, most of the time, the editing really  bothered me.  It seemed far too choppy and jarring to me.   The incredibly quick cuts and jumpy transitions put me at a distance from the emotional content of the film.  Instead of sympathizing with the plight of these poor guys, sometimes I found myself wondering how they could be so stupid as to walk right into the middle of a war zone.  Even at the beginning of the film, when the story is just being set up, and the mood of the film is supposed to be light and happy, the cutting is sharp and edgy – not at all smooth and invisible.  Like Brandon and Ryan, I also failed to have much of an emotional response to this movie, but I blame it on the editing:  Maybe it wasn’t the subject matter that failed to attract our attention – maybe the editing was ineffective at manipulating our emotions.

-Becca

Horse Boy – the technical difficulties of shooting in Mongolia

Horse Boy is exactly the kind of incredible story we all wish we could find and document:  a true-believer-type father convinces his practical wife that a pilgrimage to a famous shaman in Mongolia will help their autistic son.  Incredible, right?  Not only does the idea scratch an itching curiosity about a metaphysical realm beyond what human eyes can see – it calls into question the entirety of Western medicine.   On top of that, the natural human drama of a family striving to help their youngest member in a beautiful and exotic setting on its own, has potential to drive American audiences to the theater.

But…its on the plains of Mongolia.  As a filmmaker, I’m thinking (uh oh) no electricity,  no lights, no charging camera batteries, no way of finding help if I  have technical problems, or (god forbid) I drop the camera from my perch atop a half-wild horse.

So let’s think this through. If you were planning to film for a month in Mongolia, how would you plan?

I’d buy a camera that worked well in low-light situations and had good battery life. (And I’d probably tape the LCD screen shut or something to keep myself from using it in order to conserve battery life) and then start looking for Camera Accessories:

Batteries:  First, you’d have to buy a ton of batteries, since recharging them would be impossible after you leave the van.  There might be an adaptor  you could buy that would plug into the cigarette lighter in the van, but that’s a long-shot.  (I’m thinking something like this but for camera batteries) Batteries also tend to stop working well if they get cold, so I’d consider bringing along a few of those instant-heat packs – they’re super-cheap, super-light, and super-helpful – and keep a wool sock handy, even if it’s dirty.

Filter: Definitely, you’d want to put a protective filter over the lens of the camera to protect it from the elements, or a UV filter since you’ll be filming outside all the time.  (Does the filter brand make any difference?  Who knows about this?)

Lens: You’d want some kind of lens-cleaning solution.  I’ve always just used equal parts alcohol and water and a clean cotton cloth, so I’d probably prepare some ahead of time and carry a small bottle of it in my bag.  What do y’all use?  I’d also want some canned air to clean dust out of the camera crevices (as well as the lens).

Tripod: You’d want something lightweight and easy to move around.   I’d spring for one of those fancy carbon-fiber with the quick-flip leg locks if I could afford it.  But who are we kidding?  no documentarian has that much money to spend, and the camera would be really light as well, since it’s being carried by horseback, so the carbon fiber isn’t really necessary, and the aluminum ones would probably be just fine.  I’d still want the quick-flip legs though.   I don’t know anything about choosing heads for tripods, though.  As long as it has a quick-release plate,  and could support the weight of the camera, I think I’m good (although a level would be nice).  I might buy an extra plate, just in case something horrible happened and I lost the first one.  I’d also like a tripod with attachable and/or retractable spikes on its legs, so it would stand steady on a dewy grass or in wind.  I don’t know if that’s necessary, though. What do you guys think?

Mics: Since there’s no chance of interference in the middle of nowhere, a wireless mic or two would be great to use in addition to a shotgun mic you could mount on your camera, but you’d have to worry about batteries for those, too.  (Maybe problems with capturing good sound is one of the reasons they narrated the film?)  I don’t know much about how to buy a microphone, but all the ones I’ve used in the past have been either Sinnheiser or Audio-Technica, so apparently those brands are popular.  You’d expect a lot of wind, so definitely buy extra wind-screens, and moleskin to keep the mic inside a shirt.  I’d bring a pair of ear-buds along as well as a pair of headphones, just in case they stopped working or got wet or something.

Other things: I’d make sure to keep my tapes and/or hard drive in a waterproof container.  I’d try to figure out some way to keep the camera strapped to my body.  I’d pray to the documentary gods.

What would y’all do?  I’m probably forgetting some really simple ideas.  Also, if any of you have expertise in buying specific producs, I’d love to hear it!

A moral dilemma in Waltz with Bashir

Animation in Waltz with Bashir was a clever way to successfully navigate obstructions in the process of making the film. (The filmmaker draws attention to this in the snowy scene outside a friend’s house: One of the main characters tells Ari that he can draw as much as he wants as long as he wants, as long as there are no cameras pointed on him.)  But the jarring switch between animation and reality at the very end of the film is a gimmick so powerful that it makes me uncomfortable.  Perhaps it should be re-thought.

First of all – while animating the film is a brilliant way to overcome obstacles, there are drawbacks to using animation in this project.   It’s easy to forget that you’re watching a documentary after staring at drawings for over an hour. The subject matter becomes far less real to the viewer when the details of life become watery pencil strokes and strange colors are used where they don’t seem to belong. It encourages a more enticing suspension of disbelief than most documentaries that use film or video of real life. Additionally, the format of the film moves back and forth between a dream-world that never existed and the real world. The two worlds are woven together masterfully, and allows the audience to become totally engrossed in the film in a way which couldn’t be accomplished if only the dream-world was animated while the real-world remained in video.

At the very end of the film, though, reality comes crashing back to the audience when animation suddenly gives way to actual footage of screaming women in a massacred village.

While this technique is successful in shocking the audience into a realization that this massacre (and the entire story) actually happened, it also smoothes over the fact that this documentary is, in fact, a personal doc — the story of one man and his quest for truth, not an objective historian’s tale.   Audiences are so caught up in the painful footage that the man behind its production is forgotten, even though he narrates throughout.

The gimmick is perhaps too successful, and raises a moral dilemma: when the use of a gimmick is so strong that it obscures the truth of its subject, should it be used?  The film was, after all, the documentation of an Israeli soldier’s personal journey, but its evidence is taken as fact.  Most of the people who worked on the film were also Israeli.  How would the participants in the documentary (e.g.- the sorrowful women at the end) react to this shocking use of real found- footage?

When a personal doc employs the devices of a narrative (animation) and the shock tactics of a thriller, I think its craftsman should make more of an effort to include other view-points (instead of projecting preconcieved ideas onto his/her subjects).  At the least, s/he should make it evident that the film was a personal doc with a bold announcement at the beginning and end of the film.

While the audio recordings were all real interviews with actual (Israeil) participants in the Labanon war, I think this film definately resides in the grey area between narrative and documentary.

Then again, this post is based on my own experience of the film, as a young, white, over-educated American woman.  I was completely absorbed in the subject matter, then shocked to tears, then I felt a little cheated that I’d been manipulated in such a way without being told the whole truth.

But the film wasn’t made for Americans -  As far as I can tell,  it was for Israelis, Lebanese, and Syrians.

For those of you who are interested in how world audiences reacted to the film – It was shown in Beirut (even though it’s officially banned by the Lebanese government).  You can read about it here, but the only people interviewed were 1) the woman responsible for it’s screening, and 2)Ari Folman, the film’s creator, so there may be a bias.The Jerusalem Post applauded the film, while  Haaretz denounced it as propoganda.

Food, Inc.

I saw the very last screeining of Food, Inc. at Dobie a few weeks ago. It was a good movie, and I was impressed by its ability to influence my (extremely) conservative cousin, Robert.  I’ve been thinking about what kinds of devices it employed to do that.

First, the film really helped audiences sympathise with the small farmers’ plight.   The filmmakers avoided too much pontificating by ivory tower thinkers and interviewed about a dozen farmers to hear what they had to say about the supermegacorporatocracy.  In these interviews, they emphasized how corporations have used and hurt the people they depend on most.   In the process of doing that, the filmmakers showed sweeping landscapes of beautiful fields, mountains, and streams,  in addition to disgusting feed lots.  It capitalized on the romaticism of the yeoman ideal archetype (that has commanded respect from the population of the U.S. for a few hundred years) while simultaneously insinuating that the ideal is threatened by a corporatized meat industry.

The filmmakers successfully kept ‘liberal values’ out of the film by focusing on how the meat industry is hurting people – not animals – and I don’t think anyone in the film ever said they were vegetarians.

Finally, the filmmakers interviewed a lot of people who self-identified as Republicans, which totally helped the street cred of the film.

After seeing the movie, Robert (the conservative cousin) even visited Food, inc’s website and is actually building a chicken coop  in his back yard!  If you’re interested, check this out…

http://www.takepart.com/blog/2009/08/28/build-your-own-chicken-coop/