Friday, November 20, 2009
Food, Inc.
Just got done watching Food, Inc. Ashley and I spent about 15 minutes trying to decide what to watch via Netflix or iTunes, and I said "no documentaries!" I didn't want to think tonight. I suggested Crank 2 or something like that but Ashley wasn't too excited about that idea. Then we saw Food, Inc. on iTunes and I remembered really wanting to see it when it came out, but as usual, no theaters in our area carry this type of film (If it wasn't made my Michael Moore and its a doc - its not showing in St. Charles, IL). Anyway, I saw a sign for the dvd, interestingly enough, at Chipotle (which I now plan to investigate as I thought Chipotle was owned by McDonald's). So when it came up on iTunes and Ashley said she wanted to see it I decided thinking on a Friday night might be OK.
UPDATE! So I just had one of those sort of media-crossover moments that just kinda makes you smile, whether you discover its something "good" or "bad". I went searching to figure out if the Mac Shack owns Chipotle. Turns out they DID have a majority stake in the company for several years, and are responsible for much of its growth, but did not start it and now have no involvement. Chipotle really does use quality food grown "with integrity" as they like to say. Anyway - I found this story: http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=7857921. Check it out - might give more hope than the end of Food, Inc.! (read below) - and the crazy part... it features the jolly organic farmer who also gets a ton of screen time in the movie. Guess he is the face of the "real" food movement for big media. Crazy!
It's a good movie - not as entertaining as something like Super Size Me, but beautifully shot with solid arguments presented throughout. So solid were the arguments that by the end I was ready to say screw it - the little guy has no chance in anything anymore. I don't even grow corn or soybeans, and I'm scared Monsanto (the biggest producer of soybean seed in the world), is going to find a reason to sue me for patent infringement. The power of these companies is staggering, as is their lobbying power and connections to the powerful in our country's government.
Food, Inc. makes the stronger argument, the one based in logical reasoning, and largely stays away from more pathos oriented individual stories. Well... kind of anyway - there is the mom who's kid died because of tainted beef, and the corporate chicken farmer who is miserable, and the independent organic farmer who lives a jolly and fulfilling life. Maybe what I meant to say was that its hard to watch this film and then just be like "WELL.... the filmmakers just picked the most outrageous and sensational examples." Because in fact, they really didn't - they simply show what's going on. And my guess is that they really DID try hard to get reps from all the major food companies to come on camera, and that they really were denied. While text that reads "Tyson Foods declined our request for an interview" set over a chicken-house that would be mistaken for a prison before a farm is a strong visual image; unprepared, belligerent, or simply caught red-handed spokespeople squirming through an interview would have been even stronger.
It's not until the last few minutes of the film that we actually are given a sense that something can be done, that there is a chance this corporate food machine can be defeated. It was a welcome sequence after over an hour of doom and gloom, but at the same time was so short that one is left wondering if anything truly can be done. The film ends with (if I'm remembering correctly) almost an identical call to action as used in An Inconvenient Truth. Text over music telling us that yes, we can change things. We can shop organic, go to farmer's markets, and call our congresspeople.
I guess the older I get the more scared I am. Scared of the powerful. Scared of the corporations. Even scared of the government. Say I make a video on YouTube that goes crazy viral. An anti-beef video. Gets on the news, gets mentioned everywhere: The newspaper, the radio, all over the web. So powerfully crafted is this thing that people start responding. Meat sales go down, I've had the effect I'm looking for. And BAM, I'm sued for more than I'm worth and simply trying to represent myself costs more than I may make in the next ten years.
Sounds crazy, right? Same thing happened to Oprah, if you remember back a few years. The film mentions this and its just scary. Yes, she won, but she is freaking OPRAH. And it still took 6 years and god knows how much from the Harpo Studios coffers. And the little guys, the seed-cleaner, the guy who doesn't want to use Mansanto seeds, well they try to stand up for themselves and don't have a chance.
Well this has turned more into a rant than a review or response to the film I guess. It's crazy though - we had left-over chicken parmesan from a fast-food pizza place for dinner. Tomorrow we are having a new fridge delivered. We will probably end up going out to grab some food after cleaning the old fridge out and transferring stuff. The grad school lifestyle's not cheap. So doubt we will go to the farmer's market or head to Trader Joe's into the organic section. Naw.. we'll probably get McDonald's (I'm serious).
:(
UPDATE! So I just had one of those sort of media-crossover moments that just kinda makes you smile, whether you discover its something "good" or "bad". I went searching to figure out if the Mac Shack owns Chipotle. Turns out they DID have a majority stake in the company for several years, and are responsible for much of its growth, but did not start it and now have no involvement. Chipotle really does use quality food grown "with integrity" as they like to say. Anyway - I found this story: http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=7857921. Check it out - might give more hope than the end of Food, Inc.! (read below) - and the crazy part... it features the jolly organic farmer who also gets a ton of screen time in the movie. Guess he is the face of the "real" food movement for big media. Crazy!
It's a good movie - not as entertaining as something like Super Size Me, but beautifully shot with solid arguments presented throughout. So solid were the arguments that by the end I was ready to say screw it - the little guy has no chance in anything anymore. I don't even grow corn or soybeans, and I'm scared Monsanto (the biggest producer of soybean seed in the world), is going to find a reason to sue me for patent infringement. The power of these companies is staggering, as is their lobbying power and connections to the powerful in our country's government.
Food, Inc. makes the stronger argument, the one based in logical reasoning, and largely stays away from more pathos oriented individual stories. Well... kind of anyway - there is the mom who's kid died because of tainted beef, and the corporate chicken farmer who is miserable, and the independent organic farmer who lives a jolly and fulfilling life. Maybe what I meant to say was that its hard to watch this film and then just be like "WELL.... the filmmakers just picked the most outrageous and sensational examples." Because in fact, they really didn't - they simply show what's going on. And my guess is that they really DID try hard to get reps from all the major food companies to come on camera, and that they really were denied. While text that reads "Tyson Foods declined our request for an interview" set over a chicken-house that would be mistaken for a prison before a farm is a strong visual image; unprepared, belligerent, or simply caught red-handed spokespeople squirming through an interview would have been even stronger.
It's not until the last few minutes of the film that we actually are given a sense that something can be done, that there is a chance this corporate food machine can be defeated. It was a welcome sequence after over an hour of doom and gloom, but at the same time was so short that one is left wondering if anything truly can be done. The film ends with (if I'm remembering correctly) almost an identical call to action as used in An Inconvenient Truth. Text over music telling us that yes, we can change things. We can shop organic, go to farmer's markets, and call our congresspeople.
I guess the older I get the more scared I am. Scared of the powerful. Scared of the corporations. Even scared of the government. Say I make a video on YouTube that goes crazy viral. An anti-beef video. Gets on the news, gets mentioned everywhere: The newspaper, the radio, all over the web. So powerfully crafted is this thing that people start responding. Meat sales go down, I've had the effect I'm looking for. And BAM, I'm sued for more than I'm worth and simply trying to represent myself costs more than I may make in the next ten years.
Sounds crazy, right? Same thing happened to Oprah, if you remember back a few years. The film mentions this and its just scary. Yes, she won, but she is freaking OPRAH. And it still took 6 years and god knows how much from the Harpo Studios coffers. And the little guys, the seed-cleaner, the guy who doesn't want to use Mansanto seeds, well they try to stand up for themselves and don't have a chance.
Well this has turned more into a rant than a review or response to the film I guess. It's crazy though - we had left-over chicken parmesan from a fast-food pizza place for dinner. Tomorrow we are having a new fridge delivered. We will probably end up going out to grab some food after cleaning the old fridge out and transferring stuff. The grad school lifestyle's not cheap. So doubt we will go to the farmer's market or head to Trader Joe's into the organic section. Naw.. we'll probably get McDonald's (I'm serious).
:(
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Girl Trouble
I found Girl Trouble to be a remarkable film that affected me as a viewer much more than I had anticipated. I still have Girlhood to watch (both films were screened in my class - I was out of town during the Girlhood screening), so rather than compare and contrast the two films, at this point I will offer some of the reasons that I found Girl Trouble to be so compelling.
The filmmakers’ technique had a lot to do with why the film works. By spending four years following three girls caught up in the juvenile court system in California the audience experiences the journey along with the film’s subjects. Often, documentaries drop us into a situation, yet fail to inform of us of what happened before and after the actual shoot took place. By stretching the timeline of the filming process, Shanga, Stephanie, and Sheila’s journeys are more complete. The filmmakers also take care to introduce the girls and their pasts near the beginning of the film, and end with an epilogue explaining what happened to each young woman post production.
I also found the choice of focusing on young women working in the “center” to be effective, because Lateefah serves as both a constant presence (if not always onscreen) and something of a narrator throughout the film. While the girls grow up and go through experiences both good and bad, Lateefah serves as a consistent role model and cheerleader to each of them. Lateefah, and her non-profit girl’s center, were interesting subjects themselves in that they did not provide a “perfect” or clean and shiny version of rehabilitation and prevention. The center is small and seems to be underfunded, and Lateefah herself is a bit odd-looking and unpolished. News reports often focus on beautiful new youth centers represented by good-looking professional spokespeople (i.e. Oprah’s girl’s school in Africa). That the filmmakers took the time or simply decided to focus on such a place seems unique in itself.
I have seen films in the past that claim to represent the stories of multiple people or characters, yet that end up focusing only on the one or two most interesting cases. This didn’t happen in Girl Trouble. Thinking back on the film, the actual screen time each girl is afforded seems to be amazingly equal (perhaps Sheila receives a bit less time, thought she was behind bars for over a year). The editing of the film carefully considers each girls storyline, and I was never left wondering for long. In fact, I can remember thinking, “I wonder how things are going with Stephanie and her baby,” just as the film cut back to Stephanie and her baby. Also, the fact that at no time does Lateefah’s story or her overall vision for the girl’s center take over the story is a testament to how well the film focuses on closely inter-related stories without letting one dominate. At no time does the film seem to devolve into an warm and fuzzy infomercial about the success of Lateefah’s center, yet that success (and some struggles) are clearly illustrated to the viewer.
My guess is that Girl Trouble didn’t have a large theatrical release, not only due to the subject matter but also due to the limited production budget. The documentary seems to be shot primarily on video, not film, and while there is some effective usage of animation in viewing court documents, neither sound quality nor carefully constructed cinematography create what might be called a “pretty,” or aesthetically pleasing film. That being said, this film’s subject matter is strong enough that those things are not necessary needed. The audience that will ultimately see or hear about the film, however, most likely pales in comparison to that who are familiar with the slickly-produced Murderball. And while I do not personally believe documentary must always maintain an “air of sobriety” it is interesting to consider that while quadriplegic rugby and the lives of its players are certainly intriguing, and that disability awareness is important, there are far more girls, probably hundreds of thousands if not more, who are currently caught up in juvenile crime and the courts who on a daily basis face a vicious cycle of bureaucracy, domestic, and economic issues that may prevent them from becoming productive citizens of our country.
The filmmakers’ technique had a lot to do with why the film works. By spending four years following three girls caught up in the juvenile court system in California the audience experiences the journey along with the film’s subjects. Often, documentaries drop us into a situation, yet fail to inform of us of what happened before and after the actual shoot took place. By stretching the timeline of the filming process, Shanga, Stephanie, and Sheila’s journeys are more complete. The filmmakers also take care to introduce the girls and their pasts near the beginning of the film, and end with an epilogue explaining what happened to each young woman post production.
I also found the choice of focusing on young women working in the “center” to be effective, because Lateefah serves as both a constant presence (if not always onscreen) and something of a narrator throughout the film. While the girls grow up and go through experiences both good and bad, Lateefah serves as a consistent role model and cheerleader to each of them. Lateefah, and her non-profit girl’s center, were interesting subjects themselves in that they did not provide a “perfect” or clean and shiny version of rehabilitation and prevention. The center is small and seems to be underfunded, and Lateefah herself is a bit odd-looking and unpolished. News reports often focus on beautiful new youth centers represented by good-looking professional spokespeople (i.e. Oprah’s girl’s school in Africa). That the filmmakers took the time or simply decided to focus on such a place seems unique in itself.
I have seen films in the past that claim to represent the stories of multiple people or characters, yet that end up focusing only on the one or two most interesting cases. This didn’t happen in Girl Trouble. Thinking back on the film, the actual screen time each girl is afforded seems to be amazingly equal (perhaps Sheila receives a bit less time, thought she was behind bars for over a year). The editing of the film carefully considers each girls storyline, and I was never left wondering for long. In fact, I can remember thinking, “I wonder how things are going with Stephanie and her baby,” just as the film cut back to Stephanie and her baby. Also, the fact that at no time does Lateefah’s story or her overall vision for the girl’s center take over the story is a testament to how well the film focuses on closely inter-related stories without letting one dominate. At no time does the film seem to devolve into an warm and fuzzy infomercial about the success of Lateefah’s center, yet that success (and some struggles) are clearly illustrated to the viewer.
My guess is that Girl Trouble didn’t have a large theatrical release, not only due to the subject matter but also due to the limited production budget. The documentary seems to be shot primarily on video, not film, and while there is some effective usage of animation in viewing court documents, neither sound quality nor carefully constructed cinematography create what might be called a “pretty,” or aesthetically pleasing film. That being said, this film’s subject matter is strong enough that those things are not necessary needed. The audience that will ultimately see or hear about the film, however, most likely pales in comparison to that who are familiar with the slickly-produced Murderball. And while I do not personally believe documentary must always maintain an “air of sobriety” it is interesting to consider that while quadriplegic rugby and the lives of its players are certainly intriguing, and that disability awareness is important, there are far more girls, probably hundreds of thousands if not more, who are currently caught up in juvenile crime and the courts who on a daily basis face a vicious cycle of bureaucracy, domestic, and economic issues that may prevent them from becoming productive citizens of our country.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Vernon, Florida
Vernon, Florida may have been the most intriguing film we have watched up to this point in the semester. In many ways, it is also my favorite of the films we have seen. Not long, but just long enough to keep my interest while at times stretching my patience, I found the film particularly enjoyable. Morris has a way of finding characters that are simply good on film. Whether it is their strange way of thinking, habits, or philosophy, when he puts someone in front of the camera interesting things seem to emerge.
The sequences featuring the old man with the a metal box full of various live animals (well a tortoise and a possum to be sure anyway) to me may have been the most interesting moments of cinema verite that I have ever witnessed. Whether the shots were set up (particularly the second with the possum) is impossible to know, but one simply sits amazed at what they are seeing taking place onscreen. Tears rolled down my cheeks in laughter during the in-class screening. Yes, it was funny - but it was so incredibly odd that I simply didn’t know how to react and exploded into fits of laughter.
That Morris captures these things says something about his knack for finding stories where others may simply drive on through. Anyone can take a camera to a small town and start interviewing people. In most cases I’d even venture to guess that people would have some strange and intriguing stories. But a jar full of sand that grows?? A man who lives in a pink trailer and is so obsessed with turkey hunting that he seems in need of some sort of professional rehabilitation? There is something special about who Morris finds and what he chooses to feature in his films.
The lack of narration, and an overall feeling of disjointedness seems to only add to the film as a whole. Vernon, itself seems to be represented in the way way in which Morris captures his subject. Shots are long, things seem lonely and quiet. Strange choices in editing and shot length (i.e. the extremely long opening short of a truck driving down the road) allude to the strangeness Morris seems to identify in the town’s more interesting characters. Some subjects are featured at great length (the turkey hunter), while others are given minimal amounts of screen time (the growing sand lady).
In thinking back on the film I wonder why Morris chooses to feature the turkey hunter so prominently. Is he trying to convey a message about obsession? About hunting? Or simply about the strangeness of individual personalities? Perhaps Morris chooses his characters and situations knowing that multiple themes will emerge in his audiences’ minds. Rather than define what we are supposed to think about these strange characters, Morris lets us decide by simply observing. It’s something we do every day, observe and judge people. Yet by placing it in the context of a documentary film, Morris forces the audience to think about why they are thinking what they are thinking without quickly moving on. We are presented with a turkey hunter simply walking along clucking for large periods of time. Perhaps that is the time the filmmaker is affording us to figure out what we make of all this. What does it mean? Ultimately, some audience members will surely get bored and start thinking about things that are more pressing personally. But there may be those who do start to take a deeper look. Those who want to learn more about humanity and how people work. I think it’s these folks attention that Morris is truly after in making a film like Vernon, Florida.
The sequences featuring the old man with the a metal box full of various live animals (well a tortoise and a possum to be sure anyway) to me may have been the most interesting moments of cinema verite that I have ever witnessed. Whether the shots were set up (particularly the second with the possum) is impossible to know, but one simply sits amazed at what they are seeing taking place onscreen. Tears rolled down my cheeks in laughter during the in-class screening. Yes, it was funny - but it was so incredibly odd that I simply didn’t know how to react and exploded into fits of laughter.
That Morris captures these things says something about his knack for finding stories where others may simply drive on through. Anyone can take a camera to a small town and start interviewing people. In most cases I’d even venture to guess that people would have some strange and intriguing stories. But a jar full of sand that grows?? A man who lives in a pink trailer and is so obsessed with turkey hunting that he seems in need of some sort of professional rehabilitation? There is something special about who Morris finds and what he chooses to feature in his films.
The lack of narration, and an overall feeling of disjointedness seems to only add to the film as a whole. Vernon, itself seems to be represented in the way way in which Morris captures his subject. Shots are long, things seem lonely and quiet. Strange choices in editing and shot length (i.e. the extremely long opening short of a truck driving down the road) allude to the strangeness Morris seems to identify in the town’s more interesting characters. Some subjects are featured at great length (the turkey hunter), while others are given minimal amounts of screen time (the growing sand lady).
In thinking back on the film I wonder why Morris chooses to feature the turkey hunter so prominently. Is he trying to convey a message about obsession? About hunting? Or simply about the strangeness of individual personalities? Perhaps Morris chooses his characters and situations knowing that multiple themes will emerge in his audiences’ minds. Rather than define what we are supposed to think about these strange characters, Morris lets us decide by simply observing. It’s something we do every day, observe and judge people. Yet by placing it in the context of a documentary film, Morris forces the audience to think about why they are thinking what they are thinking without quickly moving on. We are presented with a turkey hunter simply walking along clucking for large periods of time. Perhaps that is the time the filmmaker is affording us to figure out what we make of all this. What does it mean? Ultimately, some audience members will surely get bored and start thinking about things that are more pressing personally. But there may be those who do start to take a deeper look. Those who want to learn more about humanity and how people work. I think it’s these folks attention that Morris is truly after in making a film like Vernon, Florida.
Knee Deep
I recently saw the last 2/3rds of this film (check out the website here) as I was flipping through the channels and it came up on Independent Lens on PBS. I decided to give it a minute or two before flipping back to NHL Network and I was drawn in pretty quickly - largely due to the interesting look at life on a dairy farm. I started watching during a sequence in which a young boy was followed as he did his chores on the farm, and was amazed at how much he had to do and how seriously he took his job.
The film centers around the story of a dispute over a family dairy farm in Maine, culminating with a son who felt betrayed (or his girlfriend.. there is some question as to who the real culprit is) who ultimately shoots, yet doesn't kill, his mother.
I really liked the way this film was shot, and I particularly like how it was constructed. While it deals with a serious subject matter, the story takes so many twists and turns that the directors ultimately decide to give what might be described as an overall air of whimsy to the final piece, largely through the music used.
I'd definitely recommend Knee Deep - it was a fun watch.
Monday, October 26, 2009
The Thin Blue Line
Errol Morris demands patience in his audience. There is, however, clearly much more to The Thin Blue Line than the idea that “good things come to those who wait.” I had started watching or seen parts of the film probably five or six times before actually sitting down to watch the entire piece. Once I fell asleep, once something else came up, once I think I just was not in the mood and got bored. Yet I kept coming back to the film for some reason (I already knew the story of what happens), feeling compelled to watch the documentary from start to finish. I was glad to have it screened in class.
What seems to work so well, and what also seems to require the most patience from the audience, is the way in which Morris interviews his subjects. They are allowed to slowly ramble towards a statement that might provide the most interest or insight. Neither Randall Adams or David Harris starts out with much interesting to say. They do provide exposition for the story in that they explain their version of the facts of what happened leading up to the shooting of a Dallas Police officer. Yet as the story progresses their statements seem to become more vague, leaving the audience to wonder where the story will go.
To provide some direction and answers Morris introduces a host of experts on the case. Investigating officers, detectives, attorneys, and the judge in the case are all interviewed, and provide fairly straightforward accounts of what they believe happened. Initially, all of these sources seem credible, and while their on screen testimony may not match with that of Adams or Harris, they are positioned in the outset of the film as authority figures. Neither Adams nor Harris appear to be particularly trustworthy or believable compared to many of the other people involved in the case. They are both seen in prison garb, Adams clearly being held in a penitentiary or jail, Harris in front of a strange, colorful background that fails to hide the fact he is wearing bright orange.
Morris seems to know exactly when the audience is at the point of simply saying “OK, I get it.” These points occur several times throughout the film, and are immediately followed by an interview, piece of evidence, or testimony that completely turns things upside down for the viewer. To construct the narrative of the film in such a way that resonates so strongly with so many people is certainly not easy. It doesn’t feel like the classic double or triple-cross used in thrillers and mysteries, however (although the reenactments, music, and tone displayed in the film often allude to these genres). Morris manages to create a sense of doubt throughout the piece that never really goes away for the viewer. Even when all of the facts seem to point to only one answer, there is a lingering doubt in the viewers mind as to what they can truly believe.
As many effective documentaries do, The Thin Blue Line keeps you thinking throughout the entire film. There is no time to relax, no time to escape, no time to turn off the brain and be entertained or simply led through a narrative. Morris imparts so much meaning in every scene of the film that nothing less then full intellectual involvement from viewers will result in a worthwhile cinema experience. Perhaps this is why I had such trouble completing the film before seeing it from start to finish in class last week; there was always something else on my mind, and I could never give my full attention to what I was watching and listening to.
I found The Thin Blue Line to be particularly difficult to write about and respond to without simply outlining the plot structure. I am not quite sure why this is. I do not know if the film is so perfect that I have nothing to say about it, or if it is so demanding of the viewer that whatever I say will not live up to the ideas about the U.S. judicial system and the ultimate power of documentary that it displays.
What seems to work so well, and what also seems to require the most patience from the audience, is the way in which Morris interviews his subjects. They are allowed to slowly ramble towards a statement that might provide the most interest or insight. Neither Randall Adams or David Harris starts out with much interesting to say. They do provide exposition for the story in that they explain their version of the facts of what happened leading up to the shooting of a Dallas Police officer. Yet as the story progresses their statements seem to become more vague, leaving the audience to wonder where the story will go.
To provide some direction and answers Morris introduces a host of experts on the case. Investigating officers, detectives, attorneys, and the judge in the case are all interviewed, and provide fairly straightforward accounts of what they believe happened. Initially, all of these sources seem credible, and while their on screen testimony may not match with that of Adams or Harris, they are positioned in the outset of the film as authority figures. Neither Adams nor Harris appear to be particularly trustworthy or believable compared to many of the other people involved in the case. They are both seen in prison garb, Adams clearly being held in a penitentiary or jail, Harris in front of a strange, colorful background that fails to hide the fact he is wearing bright orange.
Morris seems to know exactly when the audience is at the point of simply saying “OK, I get it.” These points occur several times throughout the film, and are immediately followed by an interview, piece of evidence, or testimony that completely turns things upside down for the viewer. To construct the narrative of the film in such a way that resonates so strongly with so many people is certainly not easy. It doesn’t feel like the classic double or triple-cross used in thrillers and mysteries, however (although the reenactments, music, and tone displayed in the film often allude to these genres). Morris manages to create a sense of doubt throughout the piece that never really goes away for the viewer. Even when all of the facts seem to point to only one answer, there is a lingering doubt in the viewers mind as to what they can truly believe.
As many effective documentaries do, The Thin Blue Line keeps you thinking throughout the entire film. There is no time to relax, no time to escape, no time to turn off the brain and be entertained or simply led through a narrative. Morris imparts so much meaning in every scene of the film that nothing less then full intellectual involvement from viewers will result in a worthwhile cinema experience. Perhaps this is why I had such trouble completing the film before seeing it from start to finish in class last week; there was always something else on my mind, and I could never give my full attention to what I was watching and listening to.
I found The Thin Blue Line to be particularly difficult to write about and respond to without simply outlining the plot structure. I am not quite sure why this is. I do not know if the film is so perfect that I have nothing to say about it, or if it is so demanding of the viewer that whatever I say will not live up to the ideas about the U.S. judicial system and the ultimate power of documentary that it displays.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Murderball
I really liked Murderball. I also enjoyed watching Dogtown and Z-Boys and Touching the Void. So when I read Ian McDonald’s article (Available here: files.me.com/tylerjhicks/ldqasx), Situating the Sport Documentary, for the first time, I had a hard time understanding his argument. Intriguing stories, interesting characters, and narrative-style construction are watchable and entertaining, as the growing audiences for documentaries in the post “Michael Moore moment” have shown. More people are experiencing a type of film they may not have had as much exposure to, something I view as a generally “good” thing. It was not until I read through McDonald’s piece carefully for a second time that I realized what he was actually getting at in the third section of his article.
McDonald argues that documentary (specifically sport documentary) has moved into a phase in which narrative, fiction-style storytelling is often lauded over films that are more careful to focus on the context in which their subject is taking place, both politically and societally. It is not so much that one style is “better” than another as it is that the pre-Moore era films McDonald addresses focus on larger issues of concern than do the micro-focused human interest stories often told in post-Moore era sport documentary.
These concepts and McDonald’s argument definitely informed my viewing and reaction to Murderball as I continued to think about the film well after having seen it. McDonald classifies the film as a participatory documentary, and this is certainly evident throughout. From the “line up” shots of each different country’s team near the beginning of the film to the presence of the camera in the school and at the performance of Joe Soares’ son, it is clear the director of the film is carefully composing shots and controlling the environment in many parts of the film.
Murderball has an overwhelmingly strong narrative pattern, similar to those often seen in fiction films. The audience meets the characters, we meet the protagonist/s (largely seen here as Zupan and his teammates), the antagonist (Soares, although it could be argued that these roles are reversible depending on how you view the film), and are set up with a clear problem which eventually results in a climax (the Athens Paralympic Games) and resolution (a star is made of Zupan, Soares begins to learn what is truly important in his life). It’s a tremendous story; one that grabs the audience from the first shots of crashing wheelchairs, keeps them hooked with revelations about quadriplegic sex, and finishes strongly with a conclusion that is emotional and riveting on many levels.
What Murderball doesn’t do is say a whole lot about any bigger, more serious issues of politics, world, or national affairs. This is not to say that the film is only about quad rugby and not about issues of disability, masculinity and the concerns that go along with them - it certainly is. Rather, McDonald would argue that it lacks a current social context or larger discussion to relate to, one that would magnify the events we see on screen to an even greater level of importance. Murderball may capture the real, but it does so in a constructed, story-driven manner that may ultimately say more about what the director is trying to say with the film (which to me seems to be an appropriate use of the documentary medium) than about what it means to play wheelchair rugby as a disabled athlete.
McDonald argues that documentary (specifically sport documentary) has moved into a phase in which narrative, fiction-style storytelling is often lauded over films that are more careful to focus on the context in which their subject is taking place, both politically and societally. It is not so much that one style is “better” than another as it is that the pre-Moore era films McDonald addresses focus on larger issues of concern than do the micro-focused human interest stories often told in post-Moore era sport documentary.
These concepts and McDonald’s argument definitely informed my viewing and reaction to Murderball as I continued to think about the film well after having seen it. McDonald classifies the film as a participatory documentary, and this is certainly evident throughout. From the “line up” shots of each different country’s team near the beginning of the film to the presence of the camera in the school and at the performance of Joe Soares’ son, it is clear the director of the film is carefully composing shots and controlling the environment in many parts of the film.
Murderball has an overwhelmingly strong narrative pattern, similar to those often seen in fiction films. The audience meets the characters, we meet the protagonist/s (largely seen here as Zupan and his teammates), the antagonist (Soares, although it could be argued that these roles are reversible depending on how you view the film), and are set up with a clear problem which eventually results in a climax (the Athens Paralympic Games) and resolution (a star is made of Zupan, Soares begins to learn what is truly important in his life). It’s a tremendous story; one that grabs the audience from the first shots of crashing wheelchairs, keeps them hooked with revelations about quadriplegic sex, and finishes strongly with a conclusion that is emotional and riveting on many levels.
What Murderball doesn’t do is say a whole lot about any bigger, more serious issues of politics, world, or national affairs. This is not to say that the film is only about quad rugby and not about issues of disability, masculinity and the concerns that go along with them - it certainly is. Rather, McDonald would argue that it lacks a current social context or larger discussion to relate to, one that would magnify the events we see on screen to an even greater level of importance. Murderball may capture the real, but it does so in a constructed, story-driven manner that may ultimately say more about what the director is trying to say with the film (which to me seems to be an appropriate use of the documentary medium) than about what it means to play wheelchair rugby as a disabled athlete.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
