Review: "The Fog of War" the Best Film of 2003

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 86 (of 2004) by Leroy Douresseaux

The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara (2003)
Running time: 95 minutes (1 hour, 35 minutes)
MPAA – PG-13 for images and thematic issues of war and destruction
WRITER/DIRECTOR: Errol Morris
PRODUCERS: Julie Ahlberg, Errol Morris, and Michael Williams
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Robert Chappell (D.o.P.) Peter Donahue (D.o.P.)
EDITORS: Doug Abel, Chyld King, and Karen Schmeer
COMPOSER: Philip Glass
Academy Award winner

DOCUMENTARY/WAR

Starring: Robert S. McNamara

Oscar® finally noticed famed documentary filmmaker Errol Morris, and the first time turned out to be the charm. Morris’ The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara won the Academy Award for “Best Documentary, Features.”

Morris built his 95-minute film out of over 20 hours of interviews he conducted with Robert McNamara (1916-), the Secretary of Defense for both the John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson presidential administrations. Morris also supplemented the film with archival footage and other interviews, as well as with charts, graphs, animation, and other film footage. Although the film covers most of McNamara’s life, Morris’ focus is on McNamara’s involvement with the Vietnam War.

Although the film doesn’t seem to make any moral judgments on its own, Morris leaves that up to McNamara, who, in the end, doesn’t seem like he’s in the mood to make apologies for what happened in Vietnam. Watch the film and listen to the man and really understand that war, like fog, can be ethereal, so people can have a difficult time seeing the wholeness of a thing, unable to see all the possibilities and angles. McNamara is also difficult to see. For all that he tells, he really doesn’t answer many questions; he doesn’t answer the questions he’s expected to answer. Why did the war happen? Why didn’t the U.S. end it sooner?

Still, McNamara lived a large life and worked for and with a lot of very influential and powerful people. Obviously, he’s a bright fellow, and he shares a lot of knowledge and information with us. He may not answer some of the big questions that we have, but he brings us inside the machinery of war and lets us see a lot. The Fog of War is a revealing portrait, and those who listen will learn a lot about the man and a lot about 20th century American military history. It’s amazing how much McNamara and Morris can pack into such a short film. The Fog of War is a vivid film more potent than fiction and as rich as life itself.

10 of 10

NOTES:
2004 Academy Awards: 1 win: “Best Documentary, Features” (Errol Morris and Michael Williams)

----------------------------

Review: "Taxi to the Dark Side" Chases the Truth

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 90 (of 2010) by Leroy Douresseaux

Taxi to the Dark Side (2007)
Running time: 106 minutes (1 hour, 46 minutes)
MPAA – R for disturbing images, and content involving torture and graphic nudity
WRITER/DIRECTOR: Alex Gibney
PRODUCERS: Alex Gibney, Eva Orner, and Susannah Shipman
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Maryse Alberti and Greg Andracke
EDITOR: Sloane Klevin
Academy Award winner

DOCUMENTARY

Starring: Alex Gibney (narrator), Moazzam Begg, Pfc. Willie Brand, Pfc. Jack Cloonan, Damien M. Corsetti, Sgt. Thomas Curtis Carlotta Gall, Tim Golden, Tony Lagouranis, Sen. Carl Levin, Anthony Morden, Dan Mori, Spc. Glendale C. Wallis, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, John Yoo, and George W. Bush (archival footage)

Taxi to the Dark Side is a 2007 documentary film from director Alex Gibney (Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room). It won the “Best Documentary, Features” Oscar at the 2008 Academy Awards. Taxi to the Dark Side takes an in-depth look at the torture practices of the United States in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay. The focal point for this film is the 2002 death of Dilawar, a 22-year-old Afghan taxi driver from the village of Yakubi.

More than a year after the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan, Dilawar and his three passengers were taken into custody at a checkpoint on a U.S. base. On December 5, 2002, Dilawar arrived at the prison facility at Bagram Air Base. He was declared dead five days later, and he turned out not to be an enemy combatant or terrorist. An investigation would also uncover that Dilawar was tortured and that his death was the result of assaults and attacks visited upon him by U.S. interrogators at Bagram.

From Dilawar’s death, Taxi to the Dark Side examines changes in U.S. policy toward detainees and suspects after 9/11, America’s policy on torture and interrogation (with a specific look at the CIA’s roll), and research into torture and sensory deprivation used by the CIA and the U.S. military. Gibney interviews numerous players, political figures, experts, military officials and personnel for this film. That includes the soldiers involved in Dilawar’s death, their attorneys, and military experts. The director also interviews Moazzam Begg; he is a British citizen held at Bagram during the time of Dilawar’s detention and death, who was also later held at Guantanamo Bay, before being released.

For all the area that it covers, Taxi to the Dark Side tries to get at the heart of America’s use of torture and how it interrogates detainees during the Global War on Terror. This movie has a central question. Was Dilawar’s death the result of a few “bad apples,” as in low-ranking officers and ground level soldiers, or was his death the result of the implementation of a new worldwide system of interrogation. Gibney argues that whatever the “bad apples” did, they were following orders that came down the chain of command, beginning at highest levels of the U.S. government and military.

Gibney does not only focus on the tragedy and crime of Dilawar’s death. He is like a journalist, asking who, what, when, why, and how. Gibney searches long and hard so that he can tell us everything about torture. How is torture defined? What acts constitute torture? What are the recent techniques in interrogation of prisoners and what are their origins? Who are the players that make the decisions? Who is to blame – the interrogator or the one who gives the orders to torture and to abuse?

Taxi to the Dark Side is both a piece of complex journalism and the kind of great documentary that captures the imagination. It is smart, almost scholarly, but it is also hot and passionate. Alex Gibney’s films are usually smart, but they can own your attention and imagination just as well as any Hollywood event movie. And Taxi to the Dark Side needs our attention – for our own good.

9 of 10
A+

NOTES:
2008 Academy Awards: 1 win: “Best Documentary, Features” (Alex Gibney and Eva Orner)

Saturday, November 06, 2010

---------------

"Capitalism: A Love Story" Shows No Love for Greed

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 88 (of 2010) by Leroy Douresseaux

Capitalism: A Love Story (2009)
Running time: 127 minutes (2 hours, 7 minutes)
MPAA – R for some language
WRITER/DIRECTOR: Michael Moore
PRODUCERS: Anne Moore and Michael Moore
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Daniel Marracino and Jayme Roy
EDITORS: Jessica Brunetto, Alex Meillier, Tanya Meillier, Conor O'Neill, Pablo Proenza, T. Woody Richman, and John Walter

DOCUMENTARY

Starring: Michael Moore, William Black, US Congressman Elijah Cummings, Sheriff Warren Evans, Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, Wallace Shawn, and Elizabeth Warren

Capitalism: A Love Story is a 2009 documentary film by author and director, Michael Moore. The film focuses on the financial crisis that began in 2007 (and continued into 2010) and indicts capitalism and the current economic order of the United States. Moore details how capitalism via corporations dominates the lives of Americans and the rest of the world (by default).

Moore’s film travels around the country, especially Middle America, detailing how the excesses of capitalism and corporate greed have damaged, even destroyed the lives of some Americans. Moore attempts to enter the halls of power in Washington D.C. and the global financial epicenter in Manhattan, specifically Wall Street, to discuss greed and government bailouts. Capitalism: A Love Story’s topics include corporate-owned life insurance (called “dead peasants insurance), for-profit prisons, home foreclosures and evictions, the influence of Goldman Sachs in Washington D.C., modern worker strikes, Wall Street’s “casino mentality,” and more. The film asks several questions, but the most prominent being, what is the price that America pays for its love of capitalism? The film also has a religious component in which Moore wonders if capitalism is a sin and if Jesus would have been a capitalist.

Obviously the title, Capitalism: A Love Story, is a misnomer, but this isn’t a hate story. Moore examines “unfettered and unregulated” capitalism and also how modern capitalism is defined by greed, an insatiable lust for money, and the tendency to view everything and everyone as a commodity – all subject to exploitation. Moore is more than just a documentary filmmaker; he is also a crusader. As such he presents evidence and information specifically designed to prove his point – in this case that capitalism is destructive and evil – and also to get his audience politically aware and socially active.

Sometimes, Moore’s own actions in his movies come across as stunts – like his antics on Wall Street and near Congress in this movie. In Capitalism: A Love Story, this only serves to hurt the movie’s credibility and also makes him look more like a prankster than a documentary filmmaker. Like Fahrenheit 9/11, Capitalism: A Love Story avoids perfection because of its creator’s tendency to clown.

Still, Moore dazzles with his ability to tell stories about the struggles and suffering of ordinary working Americans. He is also one of the best American filmmakers working today. Impressive storytelling and exceptional technical skills are the calling cards of this brilliant movie director. When such a director tackles our nation’s most pressing issues, we should pay attention because it matters.

8 of 10
A

NOTES:
2010 Image Awards: 1 nomination: “Award Outstanding Documentary (Theatrical or Television)”

Sunday, October 31, 2010

Michael Moore's SiCKO Chronicles Real Death Panels

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 12 (of 2008) by Leroy Douresseaux

Sicko (2007)
Running time: 123 minutes (2 hours, 3 minutes)
MPAA – PG-13 for brief strong language
WRITER/DIRECTOR: Michael Moore
PRODUCERS: Michael Moore and Meghan O’Hara
EDITOR: Geoffrey Richman, Christopher Seward, and Dan Swietlik
Academy Award nominee

DOCUMENTARY

Starring: Michael Moore, Tarsha Harris, and Larry and Donna Smith

In his most recent documentary, Sicko, Oscar-winning filmmaker Michael Moore (Bowling for Columbine) set his sights on the state of the American healthcare system, examining the plight of both the uninsured and the under-insured. Moore’s argument: in the world’s richest country, 45 million people have no health insurance, while HMO’s grow in size and wealth.

During his investigation, Moore uses his trademark humor and confrontational style and attempts to shed light on the complicated medical affairs and tragedies of a wide-range of Americans. Sticking to his tried-and-true one-man approach, Moore also visits Canada, Great Britain, France, and Cuba to compare how those countries provide basic health care coverage free for their citizens.

Michael Moore is clearly dismayed that so powerful and wealthy as nation as the United States should put so many of its citizens in the position of gambling their health will always be good. Sicko seems to reveal that Moore is equally surprised and perhaps angry that the system is such a mess that even people with health insurance are not always better off than the uninsured. Moore shows how the system got that way, and then relying on people rather than statistics, he introduces his audience to various Americans who’ve suffered as a result of a system that emphasizes profit over the well-being of its patients. Some sick people even get a death sentence – in the form of a refusal to pay for a lifesaving procedure – personally from their insurance provider.

The carnival atmosphere that hangs over Moore’s films (especially Fahrenheit 9/11) is still here, but Moore rarely loses focus in reminding us that American can do better for more of its citizens when it comes to healthcare. Though his surprise sometimes comes across as disingenuous, Moore uses droll humor and sly wit to ignite the fire in your belly and the rage in your heart. I must admit that there is some unintentional humor: some of the services that European governments provide for their citizens border on nanny state overkill, but who has the last laugh? Them or we Americans?

Sicko, Moore’s best film since Roger & Me, demands that American healthcare be reformed to help all citizens regardless of financial status. Moore also argues that only those with something to gain from the status quo will ignore the sobering realities.

10 of 10

NOTES:
2008 Academy Awards: 1 nomination for “Best Documentary, Features” (Michael Moore and Meghan O’Hara)

2008 Image Awards: 1 nomination for “Outstanding Documentary (Theatrical or Television)

Sunday, March 09, 2008

Fahrenheit 9/11 a Tour de Force

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 146 (of 2004) by Leroy Douresseaux

Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)
Running time: 122 minutes (2 hours, 2 minutes)
MPAA – R for some violent and disturbing images, and for language
WRITER/DIRECTOR: Michael Moore
PRODUCERS: Jim Czarnecki, Kathleen Glynn, and Michael Moore
EDITORS: Kurt Engfehr, T. Woody Richman, and Christopher Seward

DOCUMENTARY/WAR

Starring: George W. Bush, Lila Lipscomb, and Michael Moore

His detractors have called documentary filmmaker Michael Moore everything from a polemist to a propagandist. The Oscar® winning director (Bowling for Columbine) is the best known American documentary movie maker, even better known than such acclaimed talents as Ken Burns and Errol Morris. In the late spring of 2004, Moore debuted is most controversial work to date, Fahrenheit 9/11, in which Moore aims his camera squarely at the administration and policies of U.S. President George W. Bush.

Fahrenheit 9/11 details the connections between the Bush family and various Saudi Arabian oil interests, especially the bin Laden family – ironic considering that Bush and the bin Laden family member who is the alleged architect of the September 11, 2001 attacks on America, Osama bin Laden, are now mortal enemies. The film also takes a look at what happened after 9/11/2001, and how the Bush administration used the tragic event to push its agenda. Moore’s claims include accusations that Bush family and business associates have greatly benefited monetarily from the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq through government military and petrochemical contracts. Fahrenheit 9/11 later takes a look at the affects of combat in Iraq on the soldiers and Iraqi citizens, and Moore interviews Lila Lipscomb, a proud and patriotic mother whose son dies in Iraq.

Unlike Moore’s films, Roger & Me and the aforementioned Columbine, Moore, as a character, does not make many on-screen appearances in Fahrenheit. Fahrenheit 9/11 is more focused than the Academy Award-winning Columbine because Moore has to spend a great deal of the film detailing his arguments, especially in the film’s first half. The first hour or so of Fahrenheit 9/11 is where Moore makes his arguments that George Bush and his cronies and administration used the war to enact government and social policies that they wanted to force on Americans all along and that the terrorist attacks on the U.S. gave them the opening they needed. Moore claims that ultimately the war in Iraq was more about the Hand Puppet’s administration’s desire to make money than protecting the U.S. What makes Michael Moore’s argument convincing is that he culls so much archival news footage, photographs, and video from recent news conferences. Thus, the subjects of his film do the vast majority of the talking and inadvertently convict themselves and prove Moore’s points.

The first half of Fahrenheit 9/11, when it focuses on George Bush, is outrageous and hilarious. Michael Moore has the gift of being both subtle and blunt when it comes to humor. His satire has the precision of a scalpel, and he presents arguments with the blunt force of a fist; he is brutal and relentless. Considering how so many Hollywood directors of comedies now rely on childish gross out jokes to sell their “humor,” Moore is likely the smartest film director of humor in America. He uses President Bush and his associates like hapless sock puppets for his jokes, all the while he expertly delineates their follies.

The second half of Fahrenheit 9/11 is a bit of a downer, as Moore takes his camera to Iraq to interview soldiers. He also interviews a soldier’s mother from his hometown of Flint, Michigan. Although many critics have claimed that Michael Moore portrayed the American servicemen and servicewomen as villains, I found that to be otherwise. The little time the soldiers are on camera, Moore shows warts and all, but the soldiers come out looking like humans and not killing machines. They make mistakes and do ugly things, but Moore shows them as the heroes – guys and girls just doing their jobs. If the job is wrong, it’s not by their hands, but it’s on the people who sent them there.

The other segment of Fahrenheit 9/11 that’s really hard to watch is Moore’s time spent with Lila Lipscomb, the mother of a slain soldier. His camera takes such an intimate look at her life surrounding her son’s service in Iraq that when tragedy strikes, the viewer also feels the pain.

As good as Moore is at making documentaries, he also uses film to make commentary, and he uses film as if he were an essayist. He’s also part of that other group of journalists, reporters, storytellers, etc. who go beyond the safe borders where mainstream American media won’t go. Michael Moore just happens to be the loudest source of alternative information concerning politics and society, and Fahrenheit 9/11 may be his most accomplished work. Still, it’s by no means perfect; sometimes the film looses focus (as during his visit with two Oregon state troopers). However, Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sign of even greater things to come from Moore, and it’s one of the best films of the year.

9 of 10
A+

NOTES:
2004 Cannes Film Festival: 2 wins: “FIPRESCI Prize Competition” (Michael Moore) and Golden Palm or “Palme d’Or” (Michael Moore)

Documentary "No End in Sight" is Simply Brilliant

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 139 (of 2007) by Leroy Douresseaux

No End in Sight (2007)
Running time: 102 minutes (1 hour, 42 minutes)
MPAA – no rated
WRITER/DIRECTOR: Charles Ferguson
PRODUCERS: Jennie Amias, Charles Ferguson, Audrey Marrs, and Jessie Vogelson
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Antonio Rossi
EDITORS: Chad Beck and Cindy Lee
Academy Award nominee

DOCUMENTARY – Politics, Iraq War

Starring: Campbell Scott (narrator), Chris Allbritton, Richard Armitage, Amazia Baram, Ambassador Barbara Bodine, Gerald Burke, Gen. Jay Garner, Col. Paul Hughes, George Packer, Paul Pillar, Nir Rosen Walter Slocombe, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson with Seth Moulton, Hugo Gonzales, and David Yancey

No End in Sight is the acclaimed documentary from award-winning documentary filmmaker (and former Brookings Institution fellow) Charles Ferguson. No End in Sight examines the decisions that led to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March of 2003 but mostly focuses on the handling of the subsequent occupation as managed by the administration of President George W. Bush. The film, which premiered at the 2007 Sundance Film Festival (where it won the “Special Jury Prize for Documentaries”), features exclusive interviews with central players in the planning and execution of the invasion. Using these interviews, Ferguson also offers a detailed analysis of the American occupation of Iraq through most of 2006.

Masterfully edited and tightly composed as a narrative, No End in Sight provides a broad view of the poor planning and general incompetence in managing post-invasion Iraq. The film also reveals the Bush administration’s ignorance about Iraq and the high-level arrogance that in turn resulted in poor decision making early in the occupation of Iraq. Charles H. Ferguson, a political scientist and software entrepreneur, pulls no punches as he chronicles the twists and turns the Bush administration took to lead American down the path to war, but rather than merely acting as a Bush-hater, Ferguson wants to make us mad. Arrogance, mishandling, GOP cronyism, willful ignorance, etc. cost the United States dearly in Iraq. Ferguson’s argument is that the early days of the occupation should and could have gone much better that it did, but the early mistakes essentially made the occupation of Iraq, over the long run, a disaster for the U.S., if not outright dooming the occupation to failure. The film seems to say, “We should be mad because it should have gone better.”

No End in Sight doesn’t necessarily take sides. Was the 2003 invasion of Iraq right or wrong? Ferguson avoids that question, for the most part. Instead, he focuses on how U.S. success in Iraq was lost from the beginning, and that’s damning enough.

9 of 10
A+

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

NOTES:
2008 Academy Awards: 1 nomination: “Best Documentary, Features” (Charles Ferguson and Audrey Marrs)

Alex Gibney Hits the Jackpot with "Casino Jack" Documentary

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 81 (of 2010) by Leroy Douresseaux

Casino Jack and the United States of Money (2010)
Running time: 118 minutes (1 hour, 58 minutes)
MPAA – R for some language
WRITER/DIRECTOR: Alex Gibney
PRODUCER: Zena Barakat, Alison Ellwood, and Alex Gibney
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Maryse Alberti
EDITOR: Alison Ellwood

DOCUMENTARY – Politics

Starring: Tom DeLay, Thomas Frank, Adam Kidan, Bob Ney, Ron Platt, Sue Schmidt, Melanie Sloan, Neil Volz with Stanley Tucci and Paul Rudd

For almost 20 years, Jack Abramoff was an American lobbyist. He was also a businessman, film producer, and political figure. His ascendancy as an influential and powerful man, both as a lobbyist and within the Republican Party, began when the Republicans seized control of both houses of Congress in 1994. Over the next 12 years, Abramoff lobbied Congress for Indian casinos, sweatshop owners in Saipan, and even shadowy Russian interests. He eventually went to prison for defrauding his Native American clients and corruption of public officials.

Written and directed by Alex Gibney, Casino Jack and the United States of Money is a documentary film about Jack Abramoff, his career, his lobbying activities, and the people around him – including Congressmen, congressional staffers, fellow lobbyists, and assorted figures within conservative and right-wing Christian politics. Gibney won an Oscar for his 2007 documentary, Taxi to the Dark Side, but Gibney deftly plumbed the depths of economic and political scandal in the Oscar-nominated documentary, Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room.

However, Casino Jack and the United States of Money is not just about Abramoff. It is really about the buying and selling of the American government with lobbyists as the go-betweens for the buyers (powerful business interests) and the sellers (Congress). Gibney dazzles with stories of Indian tribal councils spending millions of dollars to keep their casinos and to keep other tribes from having casinos. There is the sex slave industry in Saipan and a murdered Greek casino tycoon. Cold War intrigue mixes with African revolutionaries. Congressmen take lavish, overseas golf trips – transportation by private, corporate jet. But the real story is about the looting of the American government, our broken system of government, and the perilous state of our democracy.

Jack Abramoff was in prison while Gibney was making Casino Jack and the United States of Money, and although he was able to interview Abramoff in prison, Gibney was unable to film the former lobbyist for inclusion in the film. Not having Abramoff is a glaring omission, but this film is really about Casino Jack Abramoff AND the United States of Money. For all that the film covers Abramoff, his career, activities, associates, and business partners, the underlying theme of this documentary is the legalized bribery and influence peddling that has basically turned the American government over to people who can afford to buy it.

Gibney’s gift is to take subjects like accounting, finance, government, and law and make them interesting. Like the Enron movie, this Jack Abramoff movie is about corruption, and Gibney fills the film with interviews of the people involved and the people who are reporting on the takeover. What could be a boring piece of journalism is instead a compelling narrative that will wake up the viewer to corruption about which he should and must care. Gibney convinces the viewer that the corruption matters to him because it affects him and perhaps it will make that viewer become engaged and maybe even outraged.

Gibney can even find the humor in the con game. His interview with former Republican House Majority Leader, Tom Delay, reveals a man in denial about his activities with Abramoff. It is funny to watch Delay deliver half-truths and spin with smooth-as-silk dishonesty, as if he did not unethical, let alone wrong. I don’t know if Casino Jack and the United States of Money will make people take to the streets and demand change (probably not), but it is an important documentary in the modern history of American politics. It exists as a warning, a signpost on the road to American ruin. Ignore it at your peril.

9 of 10
A+

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

"Jesus Camp" Not as Passionate as its Subject Matter

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 25 (of 2007) by Leroy Douresseaux

Jesus Camp (2006)
Running time: 85 minutes (1 hour, 35 minutes)
MPAA – PG-13 for some discussions of mature subject matter
PRODUCERS/DIRECTORS: Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Mira Chang and Jenna Rosher
EDITOR: Enat Sidi
Academy Award nominee

DOCUMENTARY – POLITICS/RELIGION

Starring: Pastor Becky Fischer

The documentary, Jesus Camp, takes a sharp look at a particular part of the Evangelical revivalist subculture that indoctrinates devout Christian children and trains them to become “Christian soldiers in God’s army.” These are the children will grow up to become the adults who deliver the fundamentalist community’s religious and political messages.

The film focuses on Pastor Becky Fischer and her Kids on Fire summer camp at Devil’s Lake, North Dakota, where Fischer and her cohorts attempt to solidify and deepen the spirituality of the preteen children who come from around the country to attend the camp. Fischer and company also exhort the children towards political activism in which the goal is “taking back America for Christ.” The film also focuses on Levi, a boy who is already preaching to other children.

Early in Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady’s documentary film, a preteen girl finishes a faux-break dance routine, and then, tells the camera that she has to watch out and make sure that she isn’t “dancing for the flesh” and is instead dancing for Christ. Watching this film gives the viewer a chance to see how adults brainwash children and indoctrinate these impressionable young minds into whole heartedly buying the adults’ ideologies and beliefs. While this might appall some people, and, considering the politics of Jesus Camp’s subjects, also make liberals uncomfortable, brainwashing children is nothing new. As the film’s creepy star, Pastor Becky Fischer of Kids on Fire says, children never have a choice in what adults teach them. Thus, her attitude is more or less, why not program them with her ideas and lifestyle instead of allowing someone else to program them.

Certainly, Jesus Camp is excellent view of how religious factions and organizations indoctrinate children, but the directors certainly consider this a more important issue than I think it is. Ewing and Grady likely mean Jesus Camp to be more of a warning than a cautionary tale, and some viewers may find the contents of this documentary to be a sign of the looming apocalypse. No doubt there is a fair amount of shocking material here, but it’s shocking in a humorous sort of way. For instance, during a mini-rant about that literary “warlock,” Harry Potter, Pastor Becky mentions that Potter would have been killed in the Old Testament. When the members of a military family shown briefly in the film pledges allegiance to the “Christian flag” while holding an American flag, an Israeli flag, and some kind of flag with a cross on it, I laughed, (albeit with a bit of unease). Perhaps, the creepiest “star” of the picture is Levi, a boy who has really bought into the idea that he is going to be a preacher.

Why Jesus Camp received an Oscar nomination for “Best Documentary, Features,” over what I consider to be better documentary films (such as Why We Fight and Who Killed the Electric Car?), I’ll never know. There’s nothing cinematic about this documentary film, and it looks like something a television network such as CBS or ABC could have produced, although it is a co-production of A&E IndieFilms, a branch of the A&E cable network.

One thing that may have helped this film earn Oscar attention (and that of critics and audiences) is an appearance in the film by Pastor Ted Haggard of the Colorado Springs mega-church, New Life Church. In November 2006, Haggard resigned (or was removed) from his position at New Life Church after he confirmed some of the allegations of an alleged male prostitute that Haggard himself participated in homosexual sex and drug abuse. The resignation took place after Haggard was filmed for Jesus Camp.

5 of 10
B-

Thursday, February 01, 2007

NOTES:
2007 Academy Awards: 1 nomination: “Best Documentary, Features” (Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady)

Review: Alex Gibney's "Enron" Documentary Still Riveting

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 19 (of 2006) by Leroy Douresseaux

Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room (2005)
Running time: 109 minutes (1 hour, 49 minutes)
MPAA – R for language and some nudity
DIRECTOR: Alex Gibney
WRITER: Alex Gibney (based upon the book, The Smartest Guys in the Room: The Amazing Rise and Scandalous Fall of Enron by Bethany McLean and Peter Elkind)
PRODUCERS: Jason Kliot, Susan Motamed, and Alex Gibney
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Maryse Alberti
EDITOR: Alison Ellwood
Academy Award nominee

DOCUMENTARY

Starring: Peter Coyote (narrator), Bethany McLean, Peter Elkind Gray Davis, Mike Muckleroy, Amanda Martin-Brock, Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling, and Andrew Fastow

Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room is director Alex Gibney’s documentary and adaptation of Bethany McLean and Peter Elkin’s book about energy trading company Enron, The Smartest Guys in the Room: The Amazing Rise and Scandalous Fall of Enron. The film takes a behind-the-scenes look at Enron, from its auspicious beginnings and meteoric rise to its shocking fall into bankruptcy.

By the turn of the century, Enron was the seventh largest corporation in America, but the company was built on fraudulent accounting and phantom profits. By the time the company died, its top executives had milked the company for over a billion dollars in personal income, while investors, retirees, and employees lost everything including retirement benefits and 401k’s. Enron the film has the usual blend of archival, video, and news footage one would expect of a documentary. It also has interviews and a wealth of information from documents and insiders including former executives and employees of the company. The film even includes an interview with former California Governor Gray Davis who took the fall for the mess a few energy companies, Enron in particular, made of the state’s electrical supply earlier this decade.

The film is a riveting and fascinating documentary, and though it may seem like a left-leaning political movie (and it does take swipes at the Bush Administration), Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room is a crime story about a business climate in which corporate executives not only steal money and commit fraud, but it is also about people whose greed seems to know no limits. The film does have a few weaknesses, which keeps it from being a truly great documentary. First it’s not long enough to cover the complicated mess that was Enron. Secondly, Gibney needed to slow down and explain in simple terms complicated accounting and business practices and explain exactly what products Enron sold or what services it provided. Thirdly, the film is too much geared towards people already very familiar with the Enron story.

But for people who already know what’s going on, this is good stuff that will leave you wanting more – much more. Gibney smartly interviews so many people intimately involved with Enron at one point or another in the film, and the interviews with former Enron traders and other employees make this film more than just some documentary. It is a vital American movie.

8 of 10
A

Friday, January 27, 2006

NOTES:
2006 Academy Awards: 1 nomination: “Best Documentary, Features” (Alex Gibney and Jason Kliot)

----------------

Review: Davis Guggenheim Captured the Power of Al Gore and of "An Inconvenient Truth"

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 33 (of 2007) by Leroy Douresseaux

An Inconvenient Truth (2006)
Running time: 97 minutes (1 hour, 37 minutes)
MPAA – PG for mild thematic elements
DIRECTOR: Davis Guggenheim
PRODUCERS: Laurie David, Lawrence Bender, and Scott Z. Burns
EDITOR: Jay Lash Cassidy and Dan Swietlik
Academy Award winner

DOCUMENTARY – Social, Environmental, Political

Starring: Al Gore

In An Inconvenient Truth, director Davis Guggenheim captures former Vice-President Al Gore in the midst of waging his passionate campaign to inform people about global warming. The former presidential candidate has traveled the world for several years delivering a visual presentation (think slide show using Apple’s Keynote presentation program) on global climate change. His argument is that people and their governments must confront global warming now or face devastating consequences in the coming decades.

Guggenheim’s documentary film captures this presentation on film, and intersperses Gore’s show with the story of Gore’s personal journey from childhood to idealistic young college student who saw an environmental crisis on the horizon and from brash young Senator to environmental advocate. Gore also allows Guggenheim to open a door into the personal tragedies of his life.

Gore had been showing his global warming presentation in school auditoriums and hotel conference rooms for years with little fanfare. When a group of filmmakers approached him about committing this presentation to film, they may not have known then that they would be creating the most popular documentary film of 2006. Since An Inconvenient Truth debuted at the 2006 Sundance Film Festival, many people have been surprised that Al Gore could be so engaging with a disarming sense of humor. The funny and passionate Gore of An Inconvenient Truth existed throughout his political career, but much of the media portrayed him otherwise during his 2000 presidential run.

Honestly, I don’t know if An Inconvenient Truth will convince many, if any, viewers about the dangers of global warming and the problems it is causing and will cause. For the most part, this documentary comes across as preaching to the choir and to the converted. Still, like many people with a cause for which they are mega passionate, Gore, for all his warmth, does come across as somewhat strident in the film.

An Inconvenient Truth is like a visual document of a toasty lecture by our favorite, old crusty professor. This may be nothing more and nothing less than PBS, The Discovery Channel, and their like have been showing for years. The difference here is that if you like Gore, you’ll be very entertained and informed by this and like the fact that he’s the one doing the entertaining and informing.

7 of 10
B+

NOTES:
2007 Academy Awards: 2 wins: “Best Documentary, Features” (Davis Guggenheim) and “Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Song” (Melissa Etheridge for “I Need to Wake Up”)

Sunday, February 11, 2007

-------------------------

Review: Remembering "4 Little Girls"

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 76 (of 2010) by Leroy Douresseaux

4 Little Girls (1997)
Running time: 102 minutes (1 hour, 42 minutes)
DIRECTOR: Spike Lee
PRODUCERS: Spike Lee and Sam Pollard
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Ellen Kuras
EDITOR: Sam Pollard
COMPOSER: Terence Blanchard
Academy Award nominee

DOCUMENTARY/HISTORY

Starring: Maxine McNair, Chris McNair, Alpha Robertson, Janie Gaines, Dianne Braddock, Shirley Wesley King, Bill Baxley, James Bevel, Bill Cosby, Walter Cronkite, Ossie Davis, Jesse Jackson, Coretta Scott King, Fred Shuttlesworth, Reggie White, and Andrew Young

4 Little Girls is Spike Lee’s 1997 documentary film about the 1963 16th Street Baptist Church bombing. Located in Birmingham, Alabama, this African-American church was a hub of the city’s Civil Rights movement in the 1950s and 60s.

On the Sunday morning of September 15, 1963, four members of a Ku Klux Klan group planted a box of dynamite with a time delay under the steps of the church near the basement. Killed in the ensuing explosion were 14-year-old Addie Mae Collins, 11-year-old Denise McNair, 14-year-old Carole Robertson, and 14-year-old Cynthia Wesley – the titular 4 little girls of the film.

4 Little Girls recounts the days leading to the bombing, the state of the Civil Rights movement in Birmingham at the time, and the aftermath, specifically the girls’ funerals. Lee interviewed the people who knew the girls, including surviving parents, siblings, neighbors, relatives, and friends, among others. For the film, Lee also interviewed a number of Civil Rights luminaries, social activists, and other famous figures, including Andrew Young, Bill Cosby, Ossie Davis, and Coretta Scott King. The film is filled with archival footage, most of it coming from televised news, which presents other key participants, including Dr. Martin Luther King and the bombing plot’s ringleader, Robert “Dynamite Bob” Chambliss.

The film begins with Joan Baez singing “Birmingham Sunday” a song that chronicled the events and aftermath of the bombing. The song, written by Richard and Mimi Farina (Joan Baez’s sister), is a haunting theme throughout 4 Little Girls.

In the first hour of the film, Spike Lee does a superb job in presenting the state of affairs in Birmingham and connecting it to the overall Civil Rights movement. Lee deftly builds to the bombing like a slow train gradually building speed to the terrible event. He does this by getting the girls’ families and friends to remember details (including one woman’s prophetic dream) that are startling in their intimacy.

The scenes that recount the actual bombing are as riveting as anything found in the best movie thrillers. Using interviews and archival footage, Lee presents the shock, grief, and anger in a way that still resonates and even seems to jump off the screen and into your gut. It may be too much for some. The recollections of the girls’ family and friends and also the funeral are tear generators, although the post-mortem photos of the girls may be a bit much for some (cause they were for me).

After the scenes depicting the funerals, Lee’s film falters. The movie’s focus on the grief is morbid and obsessive. Of course, there is nothing wrong with depictions of grieving family. However, the bombing, which was clearly a racially motivated terrorist attack, was meant to halt the integration that was already occurring in Birmingham (due to negotiations between African-American leaders and moderate whites). Lee’s film only mentions that in passing. Lee also fails to present the ways in which the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing affected the move for equality in America. The deaths of those four girls gave energy to a Civil Rights movement that, at the time, apparently needed reinvigoration.

I don’t fault the film for taking such a deeply personal look at how the girls’ deaths affected those around them. Their deaths had a larger meaning; they were essentially a sacrifice, one that directly led to improving the lives of all oppressed people, not just African-Americans, in the United States. 4 Little Girls is an excellent film and a wonderful document of the lives of four innocents. It is one of Lee’s best and most powerful works, but he missed something back when he made this film – the larger context of how the bombing changed us and our country.

Seeing the sacrifice as at least equal to the focus on the victims may be a cold equation, but it was and is a reality in the fight for equality.

8 of 10
A

NOTES:
1998 Academy Awards: 1 nomination: “Best Documentary, Features” (Spike Lee and Samuel D. Pollard)

1999 Image Awards: 1 win: “Outstanding News, Talk or Information Special”

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Review: "Good Hair" Hilarious, But Fairly Empty

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 49 (of 2010) by Leroy Douresseaux

Good Hair (2009)
Running time: 96 minutes (1 hour, 36 minutes)
MPAA – PG-13 for some language including sex and drug references, and brief partial nudity
DIRECTOR: Jeff Stilson
WRITERS: Lance Crouther, Chris Rock, Chuck Sklar, and Jeff Stilson with Paul Marchand
PRODUCERS: Jenny Hunter, Kevin O'Donnell, Nelson George, and Jeff Stilson
CINEMATOGRAPHERS: Cliff Charles (director of photography) and Mark Henderson
EDITORS: Paul Marchand and Greg Nash
COMPOSER: Marcus Miller

DOCUMENTARY

Starring: Chris Rock, Maya Angelou, Eve, Melyssa Ford, Megan Goode Ice-T, Nia Long, Paul Mooney, Cheryl “Salt” James and Sandra “Pepa” Denton, Rev. Al Sharpton, Raven-Symoné, and Traci Thoms

At the beginning of his documentary, Good Hair, Chris Rock says that his daughter, Lola, came up to him crying and asked, “Daddy, how come I don't have good hair?” Bewildered, the Emmy-winning comedian, talk show host, and actor decided to find out what in African-American culture would put such a question in his little girl’s mind. To find answers, Rock, the film’s star and narrator, crosses continents and oceans. Traveling from New York to Atlanta and from India to Los Angeles, Rock visits a hair show, a scientific lab, a hair products manufacturer, and an Indian temple. Rock also visits numerous hair salons.

Along the way, he explores the way Black hairstyles impact Black people’s lifestyles and activities, pocketbooks, and sexual relationships. He even gets African-American women to talk about how their hair affects their self-esteem. A number of celebrities, entertainment industry figures, and public figures (from Maya Angelou and Rev. Al Sharpton to Ice-T and Salt-N-Pepa) candidly offer their stories and observations about Black hair. He may not get his answers, but Rock will discover that Black hair is a big business that doesn't always benefit the Black community.

The truth is that Good Hair, directed by Jeff Stilson, is less a documentary than it is like a feature news piece one might see on “20/20” or "Dateline NBC." There is a lot of funny stuff here, some of it quite shocking, but most of this movie really lacks a social or historical context. Rock and his co-writers certainly get close enough. For instance, the film reveals the fact that a large segment of the “black hair industry” is controlled by Asian-Americans who shut out African-American entrepreneurs. Rock touches upon it, but never really delves into that. He just skims the fact that in the 1980s, white-owned corporations like Revlon set out to remove Black-owned companies and corporations from the hair care business, where over 80 percent of the money comes from African-American customers.

No, rather than really examine the lack of Black ownership, Good Hair brings it up and then, it’s on to the next freak show. And that’s what this movie is – a freak show. It is very entertaining – often hugely entertaining, and I’d highly recommend it to anyone who is African-American or is interested in African-American culture. There is even a touch of sadness here, as if the filmmakers were recording an on-going tragedy. Good Hair, sadly, is a documentary that touches upon greatness, but ultimately decides to be little more than a delightful and hilarious puff piece.

7 of 10
B+

NOTES:
2010 Black Reel Awards: 1 win: “Black Reel Best Documentary”

2010 Image Awards: 1 win: “Outstanding Documentary (Theatrical or Television)”

Saturday, July 03, 2010

Review: "Religulous" is Brilliant and Funny

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 31 (of 2010) by Leroy Douresseaux


Religulous (2008)
Running time: 101 minutes (1 hour, 41 minutes)
MPAA – R for some language and sexual material
DIRECTOR: Larry Charles
WRITER: Bill Maher
PRODUCERS: Bill Maher, Jonah Smith, and Palmer West
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Anthony Hardwick (director of photography)
EDITOR: Jeff Groth, Christian Kinnard, and Jeffrey M. Werner

DOCUMENTARY – Religion/COMMENTARY/COMEDY

Starring: Bill Maher, Julie Maher, Kathy Maher, Senator Mark Pryor, Pastor John Westcott, Ken Ham, Reginald Foster, Tal Bachman, Bill Gardiner, Aki Nawaz, Ray Suarez, and Jeremiah Cummings

Comedian and politically provocative talk show host Bill Maher took on religion and faith in the hot-button documentary, Religulous, a title derived by blending the words “religion” and “ridiculous.” Maher examines the presence of religion in many of the big news stories of recent years, from Muslim rioting over cartoon depictions of Mohammed in European newspapers to a born-again Christian being President of the United Sates (George W. Bush).

Maher, currently the host of HBO’s "Real Time with Bill Maher," also skewers the current state of organized religion, while visiting Jerusalem, Salt Lake City, the Vatican, and other holy destinations. Of the many questions Maher asks on his journey, the main questions are why are believers of many faiths so sure that their religion is right, and why they’re so certain others are wrong?

One thing I wish that Bill Maher had done in Religulous was to offer more commentary from cultural, historical, political experts on religion and faith. Often this movie seems like Maher vs. the crazy religious people, which makes Maher come across as a prankster (a la Borat) snarking on the loons. Still, what Maher and director Larry Charles do present is fantastic and also funny on so many levels.

Some of Religulous is laugh-out-loud funny, but some of it made me cringe as much as I laughed behind my hands. I don’t think Maher is able to get an answer to the question of why believers from a variety of faiths are so sure their religion is right, and why they’re so certain others are wrong? Many of the people Maher meets are quite sensitive to someone not only questioning their faith, but also questioning why they are religious.

In fact, the attitude from many people is that they don’t want outsiders questioning their faiths, although many of these same people seem to have large, answered questions of their own about their religions. Maher often interrupts his subjects, and many times, he should have let them rant, even if their ranting made them look bad, scary, or crazy. The best line in Religulous came from self-avowed Evangelical Christian and U.S. Senator Mark Pryor, D-Arkansas, when he said, “You don't need to pass an IQ test to become a senator.” Pryor seemed eager to be interviewed, and while he certainly comes across as a nice guy (maybe even a smart fellow), his willingness to declare his allegiance to superstition is both sad and frightening.

By the end of the Religulous, I got the idea that this film was less about the faithful’s embrace of irrationality, superstition, and blind faith, and more about Maher giving rational people a wake-up call. He thinks that the rational, non-religious are actually in the majority, and one can hope he is right.

That said, Religulous is a great documentary because it takes a blunt, unflinching look at organized religion and faith, not through the eyes of religious scholars and clerics, but by taking on the foot soldiers and rank and file believers who give voice to their faith, warts and all. Only Maher, brilliant as both a social observer/critic and provocateur, could deliver a documentary about blind faith that is almost as powerful as blind faith.

9 of 10
A+

Sunday, May 09, 2010

Oscar-Nominated Documentary "Food, Inc." Goes to the Dark Heart of Bad Food

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 19 (of 2010) by Leroy Douresseaux

 

Food, Inc. (2008)

Running time: 94 minutes (1 hour, 34 minutes) 

MPAA – PG for some thematic material and disturbing images 

DIRECTOR: Robert Kenner

WRITERS: Robert Kenner, Elise Pearlstein, and Kim Roberts

PRODUCERS: Robert Kenner and Elise Pearlstein

CINEMATOGRAPHER: Richard Pearce

EDITOR: Kim Roberts

Academy Awards nominee

 

DOCUMENTARY – Food 

 

Starring: Gary Hirshberg, Michael Pollan, Troy Roush, Joel Salatin, and Eric Schlosser

 

Drawing on the books, Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser and The Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollan, director Robert Kenner’s documentary, Food, Inc., lifts the veil on the food industry in the United States and explores the food industry’s detrimental effects on both our health and our environment.

 

Food, Inc. explains that a handful of corporations control our nation’s food supply, and these corporations often put their profit and bottom line ahead of their workers’ safety, their consumers’ health, the livelihood of the American farmer, and the wellbeing of our environment. Kenner also spotlights the men and women who are working to reform the industry and change the way Americans think about food. Pollan and Schlosser are among those people. Food, Inc. exposes our nation’s food industry’s dark and highly mechanized underbelly, a side of it that has largely been hidden from the American consumer. The film declares that the food industry has been able to hide its dark side from us with the consent of the regulatory agencies that are supposed to police them, the USDA and FDA. The film presents an industry rife with monopolies, with questionable interpretations of U.S. laws, and with political ties that grants substantial government subsidies to the industry. One of the consequences of the food industry’s practices has been (and continues to be) rising rates of E. coli outbreaks. As evidence of the industries strange and harmful practices and innovations, Food, Inc. offers stories of science-designed food: bigger-breasted chickens, the perfect pork chop, insecticide-resistant soybean seeds, even tomatoes that won't go bad (because of the gas to which these tomatoes are exposed). The film’s scariest bit of information concerns new, drug resistant strains of E coli, the harmful bacteria that causes illness in tens of thousands of Americans annually and is not only being found in meat, but also on raw vegetables sold in grocery stores. I think of Food, Inc. as an important movie, but as far as documentary filmmaking goes, it isn’t particularly remarkable. Food, Inc. is more like an overview covering a wide range of topics, many deserving their own films. For instance, Food, Inc. informs us that the meat processing industry often hires illegal immigrants as labor. That’s not surprising, but the fact that the industry coordinates with immigration officials on ICE raids is. However, Food, Inc. only covers that aspect of the food industry in passing, and when this film does that to other subjects, I can’t help but be frustrated because I want more.

 

Still, Food, Inc. nourishes our awareness of food industry issues and leaves us hungry for more. This activist documentary may be frustrating, even infuriating at times, but it is successful at grabbing our attention concerning food issues that must have our attention.

 

7 of 10 

B+ 

 

NOTES: 2010 Academy Awards: 1 nomination: “Best Documentary, Features” (Robert Kenner and Elise Pearlstein) 

 

Wednesday, April 07, 2010 

 

-------------------------

 

 

Review: "The Future of Food Takes" on Frankenfood

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 40 (of 2006) by Leroy Douresseaux

The Future of Food (2004)

Running time: 88 minutes (1 hour, 28 minutes)

WRITER/DIRECTOR: Deborah Koons Garcia

PRODUCERS: Catherine Lynn Butler and Deborah Koons Garcia

CINEMATOGRAPHER: John Chater

EDITOR: Vivien Hillgrove

 

DOCUMENTARY - Food 

 

First, let me say that the documentary, The Future of Food, is essential viewing for anyone who eats – from high school students to senior citizens. If you have the intellectual capacity to understand the nightly news, you can get this film. This is an excellent example of a documentary that takes a very complicated subject and simplifies it so that it is of practical use to the viewer.

 

The Future of Food takes a look at the shadowy relationship between agriculture, big business (in the form of chemical companies that dominate the pesticide and herbicide industries and the seed industry), and government (in the form of Congressmen who take campaign contributions – really bribes – from those industries in order to pass legislation favorable to corporations). Director Deborah Koons Garcia takes an in depth examination of biotechnology, specifically genetically modified organisms, GMO (such as plant cells), and genetically engineering, GE, food.

 

The film also goes into the history of agriculture, and then shows how the birth of agri-business and the agricultural industry changed how humans had been cultivating crops for millennia. The agricultural industry dumped historical methods, which were time-proven safe, for new and potentially dangerous methods of cultivation without pause for examination and scientific study.

 

In Europe, where the national governments forbid the importation of GMO’s, such food is known as “frankenfood,” after the name Frankenstein. Some will remember the furor in the late 90’s and early 21st century that erupted when consumers and consumer advocates learned that genetically engineered corn was showing up in most processed corn foodstuffs such as corn chips, breakfast cereal, and taco shells. Scientists are unsure of what genetically modify food will do to people – good or bad. The GMO industry in the U.S. (and with the consent of Congress, the Courts, and the Presidency) isn’t willing to wait for scientific research of humans eating genetically engineered food.

 

Garcia’s film also looks at how big business’s GE practices have hurt family farmers through litigation and patent law. She also gives us a glance into how GE food and genetically altered seeds are finding their way oversees. Garcia has made a riveting documentary that takes advantage of her extensive research, archival footage, and wide-ranging interviews with farmers, farming advocates, and scientists.

 

The film’s weakness is a lack of commentary from the other side, which is likely because GMO companies, in particular Monsanto, which makes “RoundUp” herbicide, are on receiving end of this documentary’s criticisms and likely declined to participate. The film’s last 20 minutes are mostly spent on feel-good images and interviews that seem tacked on and a jarring divergence from the body of this documentary.

 

It’s as if after giving us a vision of food Hell, the filmmakers want to give us a wishy-washy assurance that everything will be OK. Still, The Future of Food is a must-watch, since you could be serving genetically modified food for dinner.

 

8 of 10 

A 

 

Saturday, February 18, 2006

 

------------------------

 

 

Review: Academy Award Winning Documentary "Bowling for Columbine"

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 171 (of 2003) by Leroy Douresseaux


Bowling for Columbine (2002)
Running time: 120 minutes (2 hours)
MPAA – R for some violent images and language
WRITER/DIRECTOR: Michael Moore
PRODUCERS: Charles Bishop, Jim Czarnecki, Michael Donovan, Kathleen Glynn, and Michael Moore
EDITOR: Kurt Engfehr
Academy Award winner

DOCUMENTARY/COMMENTARY

Starring: Michael Moore, Charlton Heston, Marilyn Manson, Matt Clark, and Dick Clark

After passing over his Roger and Me in 1989, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) handed out its Oscar for “Best Documentary, Features” to filmmaker Michael Moore for his 2002 feature Bowling for Columbine. The Writers Guild of America also awarded Moore “Best Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen,” one of many American and international awards the film won.

In the film, Moore explores the roots of American’s predilection for gun violence. He also takes a look at the massacre at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado where two students killed 13 people with guns and an incident in his hometown where a six year-old boy killed a six year-old girl with a handgun he found at his uncle’s home. Moore also examines American’s culture of fear and bigotry; he especially focuses on the bigotry against young, black men that marks them as violent predators. Moore also goes after powerful, elite political and corporate interests that directly make money by fanning a culture of bigotry, fear, and violence.

Bowling for Columbine is exacting in the detail to which it pursues its topics, although Moore seems as stumped as anyone to provide answers. It is as if he’s pointing at the symptoms or results of our culture, but can’t find out why things are as they are. It’s a fair and mostly balanced look because Moore gives people a chance to speak. Some, in particular, Charlton Heston (then president of the National Rifle Association or N.R.A.) seem simultaneously proud and embarrassed of their very vocal support of guns and tacit support of gun violence.

The film is often very funny. Its issues are perplexing – especially the examination of Canada, a country with a lot of guns, but very few gun deaths. BFC is also quite heartbreaking and dramatic; the segments on Columbine and the murder of the schoolgirl in Michigan are heartbreaking. Moore knows just how to push buttons when he reveals that the mother of the small boy who shot the girl works two very low paying jobs because of Michigan’s “welfare for work program.” Even with the two jobs, she couldn’t pay her rent and was evicted from her home. She moved in with her brother, and that’s where the child found the weapon.

The film is a little over the top at times. The Heston interview doesn’t go well, and in the segment, Moore seems to be picking on this elder statesman of acting, who was later revealed to be in the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease. Oh, God must not like ugly.

Some may find BRC unbalanced, and though that makes it almost as much commentary as documentary, the film is important. Someone had to document the horrors of this violent, bigoted, and greedy leader of the free world in a form that would force its way into pop culture and into the popular conscience. This excellent film only makes people mad because it is both real and truth revealing.

8 of 10
A

NOTES:
2003 Academy Awards: 1 win: “Best Documentary, Features” (Michael Moore and Michael Donovan)

"American Hardcore" is a Potent Rock Documentary

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 58 (of 2007) by Leroy Douresseaux

American Hardcore (2006)
Running time: 100 minutes (1 hour, 40 minutes)
MPAA – R for pervasive language including sex and drug references
PRODUCER/DIRECTOR: Paul Rachman
PRODUCER/WRITER: Steven Blush (inspired by his book, American Hardcore: A Tribal History)
EDITOR/CAMERA: Paul Rachman
DOCUMENTARY – Music, Retrospective

Starring: Henry Rollins, Edward Colver, Flea, Paul “H.R.” Hudson, Ian MacKaye, and Moby

Director Paul Rachman and writer Steven Blush joined forced to created the music documentary, American Hardcore, tracing punk rock music’s turbulent history from 1980 to 1986. The filmmakers focus on “thrash” hardcore bands and the punk music scenes in cities such as Boston, New York, and Washington, D.C., and various locales in California. They also explain the cultural and political backdrops and social context in which hardcore was born.

The thesis of American Hardcore is that hardcore began in 1980 and ended in 1986, although some will argue that new and different versions of it continued after ’86. The film also says very little about the pre-hardcore bands like The Ramones or Sex Pistols or that period of 1977-80 that set the stage for hardcore. The film is really a quick and broad overview of the hardcore punk scene that, while it might frustrate hardcore fans, experts, historians, etc., is easily digestible for people who know little or nothing about hardcore (including this reviewer).

Rachman packs the film with archival concert footage, which is something akin to a revelation when seeing these kinds of performances for the first time. It’s just mind-boggling to watch all that youthful energy and mania – both onstage and in the crowd. This film also features many photographs by Edward Colver. For many viewers, next to the concert footage, the best material in the film will be the many interviews with members of hardcore bands active during the 1980-86 period:  Bad Brains, Black Flag, Circle Jerks, Gang Green, MDC, Minor Threat, SS Decontrol and many more. There are even appearances by musicians influenced by the scene (Flea of Red Hot Chili Peppers and Moby). The best thing about American Hardcore is that it offers something for everyone from punk rock fans to newcomers, and while the film seems to lose energy after the first hour or so, it’s still fun to watch and an eye-opening experience.

7 of 10
B+

Friday, March 30, 2007

-----------------------

Review: Hughes Brothers Made a Documentary Classic with "American Pimp"

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 25 (of 2003) by Leroy Douresseaux

American Pimp (1999)
Running time: 87 minutes; MPAA – R for pervasive sexual content including dialogue, strong language, and some drug related material
DIRECTORS: The Hughes Brothers (Allen and Albert)
PRODUCERS: Kevin J. Messick and the Hughes Brothers.
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Albert Hughes
EDITOR: Doug Pray with Dan Lebental
Black Reel Awards nominee

DOCUMENTARY

The Hughes brothers are perhaps the most politically incorrect African American filmmakers as seen in their work, Menace II Society and Dead Presidents. They solidify their positions as the infante terribles of “black cinema” with their documentary film, American Pimp. It’s about the pimps, men (mostly black men in this film) who sell the bodies of women to other men for sexual intercourse.

In this study of “pimpdom,” street pimps discuss their lives and work: getting started, influences, technique, their style, handling their ho’s (whores, prostitutes), making money, pimp philosophy or their personal philosophy. Listening to the pimps, the viewers might get the idea that the Hughes just let the pimps take control of the film. The brothers do allow them total freedom to express themselves, and that’s what makes the film so bracing. From one pimp after another, the viewer gets a wall of information dressed in slang, profanity, and politically incorrect speech. It’s like the Hughes gave them the ultimate freedom in which to sell themselves, their lives, and their ideology.

Still, the Hughes control the tone of this film. They use film footage to illustrate some myths about pimps and prostitution, and they include a lot of personal photographs from the “archives” of the pimps. The Hughes frequently reference blaxtiploitation films, and for many of the pimps, so-called black exploitation films are how-to-manuals for pimps, and for some, maybe the films merge to become some kind of holy text. The Hughes also use the camera to really give the viewer a sense of the environment of the pimps, or players, as they like to call themselves. Bringing in the pimps’ surroundings gives the film an ambience so that the movie is more than just talking heads.

This film will offend many viewers. It’s non-judgmental when it comes to the pimps, and the Hughes really allow the pimps to by hyper verbal, to speak their minds even in the foulest terms. The filmmakers don’t seek to judge them; they leave that to the audience. American Pimp is a document about how the pimps see themselves, not really about how others see them, although the film features many ho’s talking about pimps and, to a lesser extent, their own lives.

I really like this movie, and I’ve seen it several times. I didn’t think I’d like it. Sometimes I laugh, and sometimes I find some of the material to be pretty rank. However, I was kind of sad when it ended. I was really curious about a lot of these men’s futures. I think most people who really like documentaries will be fascinated and, maybe, repulsed by this, but I think American Pimp is a testament to the power of film to communicate everything from the broadest cultures to the smallest, ugly corners of human life, both of which have been with us forever. You might not like that this film exists because you think it “glorifies” pimps, but you can’t deny the blunt force of its story.

8 of 10
A

--------------------

Negromancer Movie Review: "Howard Zinn: You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train"

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 180 (of 2006) by Leroy Douresseaux

Howard Zinn: You Can’t Be Neutral on a Moving Train (2004)
Running time: 78 minutes
PRODUCERS/DIRECTORS: Deb Ellis and Denis Mueller
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Judy Hoffman
EDITOR: Deb Ellis

DOCUMENTARY/BIOGRAPHY/HISTORY

Starring: Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Marian Wright Edelman, Daniel Ellsberg, Tom Hayden, Alice Walker, and Matt Damon (narrator)

Author, historian, and activist Howard Zinn is probably best known for his landmark 1980 book, A People’s History of the United States. However, he has been anti-war, civil rights, and labor activist for decades, and he has been on the forefront of progressive thought in America for as long. Through archival film footage and photos and with commentary from Zinn himself, the documentary film, Howard Zinn: You Can’t Be Neutral on a Moving Train, chronicles this influential thinker’s life as an activist committed to social change. The film also includes interviews with Noam Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg, Tom Hayden, Marian Wright Edelman, and Alice Walker (Edelman and Walker were students of Zinn’s when he taught at Spellman College in Atlanta in the early 1960’s.).

Howard Zinn has taken the position that the American Revolution has served the interests of an elite ruling class and that the resulting U.S. government is as tyrannical (perhaps at least as tyrannical as the British government it replaced). Over time, our governing class and our laws have largely protected the wealth and property of a rich, right wing elite and large corporations. As a historian, Zinn has examined our past from the point of view of the poor and the disenfranchised, and his books on history reflect that. Howard Zinn: You Can’t Be Neutral on a Moving Train gives us a nice overview of Zinn’s life, work, and beliefs.

However, the life and work of such an activist and intellectual requires a much longer film and certainly a more impassioned one. This is kind of like a class lecture on Zinn, narrated by actor Matt Damon doing his best solemn monotone. Still, this documentary is required viewing for people who want to learn about someone who has revealed the dark side of our democracy.

6 of 10
B

Thursday, August 17, 2006

----------------