Review: "DysFunktional Family" is Foul and Funny (Happy B'day, Eddie Griffin)

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 57 (of 2003) by Leroy Douresseaux

DysFunktional Family (2003)
Running time: 89 minutes (1 hour, 29 minutes)
MPAA – R for strong sexual content, language and drug-related humor
DIRECTOR: George Gallo
WRITER: Eddie Griffin (head writer)
PRODUCERS: Paul Brooks, Eddie Griffin, and David Permut
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Theo van de Sande
EDITOR: Michael R. Miller
COMPOSER: Andrew Gross

DOCUMENTARY/CONCERT

Starring: Eddie Griffin

The subject of this movie review is DysFunktional Family, a 2003 documentary film, concert movie, and stand-up comedy film starring actor and comedian, Eddie Griffin.

I’ve actually gone to a theatre on five occasions to see a concert film; four of movies were concert films by comedians (the fifth was Prince’s brilliant documentary Sign ‘o’ the Times, chronicling his concert tour of the same name across Europe). I’ve seen two hilarious Richard Pryor films, Richard Pryor Live on Sunset Strip and Richard Pryor Here and Now, brilliant works that showcased the flourishes that made him the funniest man on the planet and that revealed his personal tragedies in poignant, yet humorous stories. Along the same lines was Eddie Murphy Raw (currently the most successful concert film at the box office in film history), which was very funny and very revealing about Eddie Murphy’s family and his personal views on relationships. Martin Lawrence’s You So Crazy dismayed me; it was partly funny, but mostly just long, boring, and vain.

Comedian Eddie (Undercover Brother) Griffin’s DysFunktional Family is quite similar to those four works in several ways. Griffin is stylistically similar to Richard Pryor in his delivery and his storytelling and in the kind of stories he chooses to tell. Like Eddie Murphy, Griffin brings a harder and meaner edge to the kind of family and personal storytelling that makes up his act than even the very blue Pryor brought to his. However, like Martin Lawrence, Griffin’s act is filled with too many dry spots were the comedy isn’t humorous; it’s just vulgar and strained, but I have to say that Family is far funnier than I remember You So Crazy to be.

Griffin’s material is quite vulgar, not just in the explicitness of the language, but also in the harshness of the subject matter. Family was filmed during Griffin’s return trip to his hometown, Kansas City, Missouri for a concert. The film mixes concert footage with documentary footage of various members of Griffin’s family and of childhood landmarks. Director George Gallo uses footage from family get-togethers to introduce each subject or topic in Griffin’s act. For instance, film footage about a particular uncle would lead into Griffin’s routine about that uncle.

Griffin’s family is, as the say, “something else.” I found myself both laughing at and being repulsed by his family’s behavior, but I guess that we all have bone yards in our respective family closets. I know that my closet doesn’t include my mother trying to run me down in the street with her car, an uncle who directs and films homemade pornographic movies, or a junkie uncle who shoots up in front of me; still, none of us are perfect.

Griffin, at times, is absolutely hilarious. Some of the stories are quite entertaining, and some of his impersonations are dead on. Some of his social commentary is succinct, while much of it is dated and has been said before by lesser talents, especially the observations about white people. A lot the concert was just hardcore vulgar, and Griffin uses the words “nigga” and “nigger” so much that he literally takes way the impact of those two words. In fact, he states that he thinks the more you say those words, the less power they have. I can understand that using harsh language might represent the natural flow of his speech, but when he’s trying to entertain, he has to be able to communicate his message or story to his audience. Sometimes the overuse of profane and vulgar language just gets in the way. The listener just can’t capture the essence of the story if he has to spend all his time picking through the foulness.

For the most part, I like what Griffin brought to the stage. He just doesn’t seem to have much control over his material. It’s like both he and his act are forces of nature that clash against each other and what results is the cacophony of a potty-mouthed man in need of therapy, perhaps because he allegedly improvises on stage instead of having a prepared script. There’s some funny stuff here, even some belly laughs, but the delivery is so foul that I’m not sure if the end results justify the means. DysFunktional Family is for people who like it raw and shitty.

5 of 10
B-

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

Review: "Hell and Back Again" is Not as Strong as It Should Be

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 33 (of 2012) by Leroy Douresseaux

Hell and Back Again (2011)
Running time: 88 minutes (1 hour, 28 minutes)
Not rated by the MPAA
CINEMATOGRAPHER/DIRECTOR: Danfung Dennis
PRODUCERS: Danfung Dennis, Martin Herring, and Mike Lerner
COMPOSER: J. Ralph
EDITOR: Fiona Otway
Academy Award nominee

DRAMA – War

Starring: Sgt. Nathan Harris and Ashley Harris with The Marines of Echo Company 2nd Battalion 8th Marine Regiment

The subject of this movie review is Hell and Back Again, a 2011 documentary from director Danfung Dennis. The film was nominated for a best Documentary Oscar in 2012.

Hell and Back Again focuses on U.S. Marine Sgt. Nathan Harris who was wounded by Taliban machine-gun fire and returns to civilian life where he must deal with a badly-wounded leg and the stress of painful rehabilitation. Over time, post-traumatic stress disorder begins to take a toll on both Nathan and his wife, Ashley Harris. The film also switches back and forth between scenes depicting Sgt. Harris’ time in Afghanistan and his life back in America.

Hell and Back Again deserves credit for offering an intimate look at a serviceman’s life both at war and at home. However, I did not find the film overall to be all that compelling, although it does have some gripping moments. Early in the movie, director Danfung Dennis records the men in Sgt. Harris’ platoon, as they attend to a wounded comrade, Lance Corporal Charles G. “Sharpie” Sharp. Later, in that same scene, a caption appears over a black background informing the viewer that the medics could not save Sharp. Then, the video returns to show several men carrying and accompanying a body bag that apparently contains the body of Sharp. This is a stunning moment that made my breath catch.

The rest of the film lacks that potency, although there are a number of moving moments. At times, Nathan Harris comes across sympathetic, but other times, he seems pathetic, even crazy. I think the director made a mistake not featuring more scenes in which the wife, Ashley, talks to the camera – by herself without Nathan.

There is a scene towards the end of the film in which this does happen. Ashley is in a Walgreens Pharmacy when she opens up about Nathan’s behavior and the state of their relationship. This moment in the film tells us more about Nathan’s state of mind at the time than the entire rest of the film.

Hell and Back Again also has many good scenes in Afghanistan that give a sense of the difficulties the Marines have in-country, and how strained their relationships are with the locals in some areas. Viewers will see that the Marines are the ones who try to make the best of a bad situation, even in the face of obstinate and (understandably) frustrated locals.

6 of 10
B

NOTES:
2012 Academy Awards: 1 nomination: “Best Documentary, Features” (Danfung Dennis and Mike Lerner)

Wednesday, May 02, 2012

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

"March of the Penguins" a Quality Family Film

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 148 (of 2005) by Leroy Douresseaux


La Marche de l’empereur (2005)
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN: France; Language: French

March of the Penguins (2005 ) – U.S. release
Running time: 84 minutes (1 hour, 24 minutes)
MPAA – G for General Audiences
DIRECTOR: Luc Jacquet
WRITER: Michel Fessler and Luc Jacquet, from a story by Luc Jacquet; Jordan Roberts (narration for American version)
PRODUCERS: Yves Darondeau, Christophe Lioud, and Emmanuel Priou
CINEMATOGRAPHERS: Laurent Chalet and Jérôme Maison
EDITOR: Sabine Emilani
Academy Award winner

DOCUMENTARY- Nature

Starring: Morgan Freeman (narrator, U.S. version)

The subject of this movie review is La Marche de l’empereur, a 2005 nature documentary film from France. It was released in the United States as March of the Penguins, where it was a box office success and later won the Oscar for best documentary film.

In the Antarctic, the emperor penguins make an annual trek in order to return to their breeding grounds for mating season. Leaving their home, the ocean, in which they spend only a short time considering the time they devote to breeding, the emperor penguins must overcome daunting obstacles, and their trek calls to the mind of the viewer many of human experiences: birth and death, courtship and mating, comedy and drama, elation and heartbreak, and just fighting for survival. Morgan Freeman narrates the American version of La Marche de l’empereur, entitled March of the Penguins, one of the most popular documentaries in American box office history.

Viewers who like nature documentaries may like March of the Penguins. I don’t find it anymore compelling than the numerous episodes of “Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom” (1963-88) that I watched on TV when I was a child. The one thing that makes it stand out from what’s available on PBS, the Discovery Channel, The Learning Channel, etc., is the amazing cinematography (all those lovingly long shots of the cold, foreboding Antarctic icescape) and Alex Wurman’s haunting and captivating score done for the U.S. version (the original French film has a pop music score). Morgan Freeman’s voice makes for an irritating narration, but I didn’t like his short prologue and short epilogue for Steven Spielberg’s War of the Worlds either. Mostly, March of the Penguins is a mildly fascinating, but quality TV show masquerading as a film, so try it on home video and DVD.

6 of 10
B

Saturday, September 17, 2005

NOTES:
2006 Academy Awards: 1 win: “Best Documentary, Features” (Luc Jacquet and Yves Darondeau)

2006 BAFTA Awards: 2 nominations: “Best Cinematography” (Laurent Chalet and Jérôme Maison) and “Best Editing” (Sabine Emiliani)

"If a Tree Falls..." Just One Story About the ELF

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 22 (of 2012) by Leroy Douresseaux


If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front (2011)
Running time: 86 minutes (1 hour, 26 minutes)
Unrated by the MPAA
DIRECTOR: Marshall Curry with Sam Cullman (co-director)
WRITERS: Marshall Curry and Matthew Hamachek
PRODUCERS: Sam Cullman and Marshall Curry
EDITORS: Marshall Curry and Matthew Hamachek
COMPOSER: James Baxter
Academy Awards nominee

DOCUMENTARY

Starring: Daniel McGowan, Bill Barton, Kirk Engdall, Jacob Ferguson, Jim Flynn, Greg Harvey, Tim Lewis, Lisa McGowan, and Jenny Synan

If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front is a 2011 documentary film that delves into the origins of the radical environmental group, the Earth Liberation Front (ELF). Nominated for a best documentary feature Oscar, the film focuses on Daniel McGowan, an early ELF member, who would face life in prison after being arrested on December 7, 2005.

The film introduces the viewer to McGowan and explains his situation, as he awaits trial for his involvement in acts of arson that burned down a tree farm in Oregon and a research building at the University of Washington in 2001. Daniel recounts how he came to embrace environmental activism and how that led him to Oregon. There, he met like-minded individuals who believed in more direct confrontation when protesting for environmental causes. “More direct confrontation” often meant property damage, especially large scale acts of arson.

The film also explains the origins and motives of the ELF, as well as the methods they used against their adversaries. Their use of economic sabotage and what they considered guerilla warfare would get the ELF branded as eco-terrorists. The second half of the film details the F.B.I. investigation of McGowan and his associates and how law enforcement was able to discover their identities and arrest them. The film also examines larger questions about environmentalism, the effectiveness of activism, and the use of the word, “terrorism.”

As a film about Daniel McGowan, If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front, is a quality documentary drama. The filmmakers allow McGowan to tell his story, and he is both honest and articulate. This allows the viewer to get a sense of the man, his times, the places, and the events before, during, and after the ELF. Director Marshall Curry shows off his storytelling skills in the moments when the consequences of McGowan’s actions hit home – on him, the young woman who would become his wife, and his parents and siblings. His feelings of dread, boredom, helplessness, and fear, and also his family’s tears and grief can feel like a punch in gut.

The film’s title, If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front, is honest. This is “a story” about the ELF, not an all-encompassing take on the organization. Curry and his cohorts’ use Dan McGowan as a vehicle to tell a story about the ELF, but ultimately, this documentary is less about the group than it is about McGowan.

That is a bit disappointing, but who knows when and if any one filmmaker will be able to pierce the secretive organization’s veil wide enough to make a great film about the ELF. Although this is a good documentary, focusing on McGowan isn’t enough either to answer question about labeling activists as terrorists or to make If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front a great documentary. There just seems to be too much missing from it.

6 of 10
B

NOTES:
2012 Academy Awards: 1 nomination: “Best Documentary, Features” (Marshall Curry and Sam Cullman)

Friday, March 16, 2012

Muddled "Twist of Faith" Still a Timely Documentary

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 50 (of 2006) by Leroy Douresseaux


Twist of Faith (2004)
Running time: 87 minutes (1 hour, 27 minutes)
Not rated by the MPAA
DIRECTOR: Kirby Dick
PRODUCER: Eddie Schmidt
EDITOR: Matthew Clark
Academy Award nominee

DOCUMENTARY

Starring: Tony Comes, Wendy Comes, and various

Twist of Faith is a 2004 documentary film from director Kirby Dick. This American documentary film earned a 2005 Oscar nomination for “Best Documentary, Features.” It takes a close look at one of the stories to come out of the 2002 Catholic Church child sexual abuse scandals.

The focus of this film is on Tony Comes who claimed to have been sexually molested by a priest who taught at the Catholic school Comes attended in the 1980’s. Now, a husband, father, and firefighter, Comes discovers that the now ex-priest, whom he claims abused him, lives five houses down the street from the home into which Tony, his wife, Wendy, and his two children have just moved. Tony must suddenly deal with his past, and he chooses to do so publicly. That decision brings pain and embarrassment into his life, causing marital strife and disagreements with the rest of his friends and family. He comes to distrust his Church and faith, especially when the local diocese hires a high-powered law firm to combat his and others’ lawsuits. However, Tony does get to meet and form a bond with five other men who claim to be former victims of the same priest. Much of the film deals with events that occurred in 2003 and 2004.

Twist of Faith’s publicity sold them film as being a documentary about how Tony Comes struggled with the public fallout from him going public with his claims of being sexually abused by a Catholic priest. That would have been a good film, but director Kirby Dick actually focuses on Tony Comes. Dick gave Comes and his wife hand-held cameras that allowed them to directly record their thoughts and feelings. Wendy Comes does just that – talking mostly about what Tony’s situation is doing to their marriage. Tony carries the camera around wherever he goes, so we do get to see him interact with people outside his home – fellow abuse victims, friends, and his mother (including an ugly argument Tony has with her about her continuing support of the church in spite of the wrongs Tony claims the church has done to him). However, it’s all about Tony and not really about public reaction to his personal business made private.

Wendy comes across as sympathetic, a wife trying very hard to help her husband through a bad time. Tony, on the other hand, comes across as being as pathetic as he is sympathetic. I tend to believe that he was molested, but his status as a victim doesn’t change the fact that he comes across as whiny, self-righteous jerk. He is petulant, always lashing out at his wife and mother – so bitter, and immature. He plays the victim to the hilt – a drama queen who would be right at home in some 1930’s or 1940’s era film melodrama. He is the epitome of a type we’ve seen much of since the revelations of Catholic Church sex abuse scandals: a grown-ass, 30-something white man pissing and moaning about the priest that got in his pants. That’s the kind of man who could make someone wonder if he wanted Father So-and-so in his pants.

There are some good moments in the film. Many involve Tony Comes, but many more bad ones also involve him. So anyone who has a bleeding heart for victims – any victims – will find this documentary poignant. Others may find it dull, or even – dare I say – embarrassing.

5 of 10
C+

Monday, March 07, 2006

NOTES:
2005 Academy Awards: 1 nomination: “Best Documentary, Features” (Kirby Dick and Eddie Schmidt)

Review: "The Weather Underground" is Interesting, but a Little Dry

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 158 (of 2004) by Leroy Douresseaux

The Weather Underground (2002)
(film received its U.S. theatrical release in June 2003)
Running time: 92 minutes (1 hour, 32 minutes)
Not rated by the MPAA
DIRECTORS: Sam Green with Bill Siegel
PRODUCERS: Carrie Lazono, Marc Smolowitz, Sam Green, and Bill Siegel
EDITORS: Dawn Logsdon and Sam Green
PHOTOGRAPHERS: Andy Black and Federico Salsano
Academy Award nominee

DOCUMENTARY

Starring: Bill Ayers, Kathleen Cleaver, Bernadine Dohrn, Brian Flanagan, David Gilbert, Todd Gitlin, Naomi Jaffe, Mark Rudd, Don Strickland, and (narrator) Lili Taylor

Some people believe that not acting against violence is itself violence, and from this belief sprang the Weathermen. Their group, The Weather Underground, was a radical offshoot of the 1960’s anti-war student group, Students for a Democratic Society. The Weather Underground not only marched in protest, but they also rioted and bombed the offices of government organizations in an attempt to bring about a revolution in America. It was not about changing the American political landscape; it was about destroying it.

The Weather Underground is a 2002 documentary about the rise and fall of The Weathermen. The film earned an Oscar® nomination in the category “Best Documentary, Features” for directors Sam Green and Bill Siegel. The filmmakers interviewed former Weathermen and compiled those interviews with archival film footage of the Vietnam War, news broadcasts, and anti-war demonstrations. They also included readings of Weathermen letters, footage of 60’s and 70’s era interviews of the Weathermen, and photographic images of the original group and related subject matter.

The film is a sobering account of the group and its members, but the Weathermen, at least now, don’t make compelling characters, either in the present or in old film footage of the group. They’re certainly not as intriguing as, say, the subjects in fellow 2004 Oscar® feature documentary nominee, Capturing the Friedmans. The Weathermen (and Weatherwomen) actually don’t go into the kind of detail that would have really brought their story to life and given the film more life, likely because some of what they might say about their activities could still be used against them in a court of law. They are understandable secretive, but no matter how coy they may be, their hints aren’t really enough to pique interest in their former activities, and even less in what they’re now doing.

In fact, the most interesting things in this film are the accounts of the Vietnam conflict and The Weather Undergrounds quasi-spiritual and philosophical connection to The Black Panthers. When the film deals with the destruction of lives on both sides of the Vietnam conflict and the FBI’s murderous war against the Panthers, that’s when The Weather Underground is most passionate, a fatal flaw in the film, actually. Every time the filmmakers and editors move from the war and the Panthers to the privileged middle class whites who made up The Weather Underground, I found myself eagerly anticipating when the filmmakers would return to the war and the Panthers. Those parts of the film are great. Of course, the Weathermen’s story is very interesting, but it is ultimately told a little too dryly here for this documentary’s own good.

7 of 10
B+

NOTES:
2004 Academy Awards: 1 nomination: “Best Documentary, Features” (Sam Green and Bill Siegel)

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

"Capturing the Friedmans" Seems Eternally Timely

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 151 (of 2004) by Leroy Douresseaux


Capturing the Friedmans (2003)
Running time: 107 minutes (1 hour, 47 minutes)
Not rated by the MPAA
DIRECTOR: Andrew Jarecki
PRODUCERS: Andrew Jarecki and Marc Smerling
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Adolfo Doring
EDITOR: Richard Hankin
COMPOSER: Andrea Morricone
Academy Award nominee

DOCUMENTARY/CRIME

Starring: Arnold Friedman, Elaine Friedman, David Friedman, Seth Friedman, Jesse Friedman, Howard Friedman, John McDermott, and Debbie Nathan

Producers Andrew Jarecki and Mark Smerling earned an Oscar® nomination for “Best Documentaries, Feature” and won several critics “Best Documentary” awards for Jarecki’s directorial effort, Capturing the Friedmans. The controversial film about a controversial child molestation case was arguably, with Errol Morris’ The Fog of War, the best film of 2003.

The Friedmans: the husband Arnold, the wife Elaine, and the three sons David, Seth, and Jesse were a seemingly average upper-middle class Jewish family in Great Neck, New York until disaster struck. Arnold was an award-winning high school teacher in the 1980’s. He taught elementary school children computer classes in his home where his wife operated a toddler childcare group, and that made Arnold Friedman one of the first instructors of computer courses for children that young. However, the U.S. Postal Service began investigating Arnold for possession and dissemination of child pornography. After the local law enforcement became involved, they began an investigation that led to eventual criminal charges against Friedman and his youngest son Jesse for allegedly committing dozens of sexual acts with children during the computer classes. The arrest of Arnold and Jesse and the charges for the horrible crimes destroyed the family.

Although the case became a media sensation in 1987-88 and news organizations saturated the airwaves and newspaper pages with coverage of the investigation and trial, the best footage of what happened to the family was shot by the family members themselves, especially the footage shot by the three brothers. Jarecki composed his film with interviews of many of the event’s participants: the Friedmans, relatives, friends, attorney’s, investigators, and victims and with the footage the brothers shot, footage that was not publicly shown until this film.

Although the film presents compelling evidence that Arnold Friedman was indeed a pedophile, the film makes the argument that what really happened concerning Arnold, Jesse, and the sexual abuse charges during the computer classes may never be known. It also throws a harsh light on the reality that the police investigators (pigs) were overzealous in their investigation and that they may have coerced or encouraged children to declare that Arnold and Jesse molested them. The filmmakers also actually found and recorded on film participants who claimed that they made statements about being abused that weren’t true, as well as participants who refused to cooperate because they did not know of abuse, did not see it, or were not abused.

Beyond the meat and potatoes of the case, Capturing the Friedmans is compelling because the participants and events – both past and present are so intriguing. Fiction writers would kill or sell their souls to get material so good and so damn interesting. I can’t help but be amazed by how frank and honest the Friedmans were in the video footage they shot in the late 80’s. They spoke and acted on videotape as if they never expected anyone to see them being themselves, letting the real Friedmans that are behind closed doors come out. By the end of the film, the Friedmans have revealed themselves to have been a dysfunctional family from the moment the parents married.

Even the present day interviews are as compelling as the old footage. In fact, through present interviews, David, a highly paid party clown in New York, is the best character in the film. He’s so forceful, adamant, angry, and bitter that it borders on being laughable and poignant. You can’t take your eyes away from this film for one moment. Jarecki is a storyteller who makes every moment of his film riveting and a must-see. Would that more fiction films could be like Capturing the Friedmans.

10 of 10

NOTES:
2004 Academy Awards: 1 nomination: “Best Documentary, Features” (Andrew Jarecki and Marc Smerling)

"My Country, My Country" is a Family Story

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 55 (of 2007) by Leroy Douresseaux


My Country, My Country (2006)
Running time:  90 minutes (1 hour, 30 minutes)
CINEMATOGRAPHER/DIRECTOR: Laura Poitras
PRODUCERS: Joceylin Glatzer and Laura Poitras
EDITORS: Erez Laufer and Laura Poitras
Academy Award nominee

DOCUMENTARY – Family, Politics, War

Starring: Dr. Riyadh & family, Peter Towndrow, and Edward Wong

In her Oscar-nominated documentary, My Country, My Country, filmmaker Laura Poitras provides an inside look at war-torn Iraq from the perspective of a Baghdad doctor and his family. The film follows the doctor from mid-summer 2004 to shortly after the January 30, 2005 elections.

Dr. Riyadh is a physician who serves the people of his community in the Sunni neighborhood of Adhamiya in the city of Baghdad. Working from the Adhamiya Free Medical Clinic, Riyadh is a healthcare provider, but he’s also an advocate for the people in many other areas of their lives. For instance, he helps some of his patients get much needed cash.

Dr. Riyadh, a Sunni, is a critic of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, but he supports the idea of democracy as a way to save Iraq. He runs for office during the tumultuous January 2005 elections as a candidate for the Baghdad Provincial Council representing the Iraqi Islamic Party. Poitras follows Riyadh as he campaigns for office, visits the notorious Abu Ghraib prison where he counsels prisoners (including a 9-year old boy), and consults with American military officials. Poitras also observes varied groups, interests, and parties involved with the buildup to the election including the U.S. military, an Australian private security contractor (OAM), and a New York Times reporter.

Laura Poitras’ camera is very revealing as she captures the weary Riyadh in the six months leading up to the election of the Transitional National Assembly. The Sunni doctor’s weariness is evident as he examines patients and engages his family in caustic debates and acerbic conversations – often accompanied by gunfire outside the family home or on TV. Although the election occurred just a little over two years ago, My Country, My Country isn’t dated because the Iraq War is ongoing and so are the repercussions of the January 2005 elections.

Although Poitras gives her viewers that you-are-there immediacy, the film seems too interior and insular. There are glimpses of the larger outside world, but much of the film is inside something – a doctor’s office, a home, an office, meeting hall, etc. My Country, My Country, which was broadcast as an episode of the television documentary series, P.O.V., is more about Riyadh’s dismay and malaise, and less about Iraq. Although her film is engaging, Poitras seems to have not noticed that both her camera and her narrative yearned to break free from Riyadh and see more of post-invasion Iraq. Still, My Country, My Country will remain an essential look at the personal cost of the war from the standpoint of an ordinary Iraqi man.

7 of 10
B+

NOTES:
2007 Academy Awards: 1 nomination for “Best Documentary, Features” (Laura Poitras and Jocelyn Glatzer)

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Review: "The Road to Guantanamo" a Sign Post on the Road to Damnation

e

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 231 (of 2006) by Leroy Douresseaux

The Road to Guantanamo (2006)
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN: UK; Languages: English and Urdu
Running time: 95 minutes (1 hour, 35 minutes)
MPAA – R for language and disturbing violent content
DIRECTORS: Michael Winterbottom and Mat Whitecross
PRODUCERS: Andrew Eaton, Melissa Parmenter, and Michael Winterbottom
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Marcel Zyskind
EDITORS: Mat Whitecross and Michael Winterbottom

DRAMA/DOCUMENTARY

Starring: Riz Ahmed, Farhad Harun, Waqar Siddiqui, Afran Usman, and as themselves: Asif Iqbal, Ruhel Ahmed, and Shafiq Rasul

Part documentary and part drama, The Road to Guantanamo presents the true story of three British Muslim men, known as “the Tipton Three,” who were arrested in Afghanistan and unjustly held for more than two years in two U.S. detention camps at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

September 2001: an immigrant from Pakistan living in Tipton, Birmingham, England, Asif (Afran Usman) is informed by his father than he is of the age in which he must marry, so Asif heads to Pakistan to meet his betrothed. Asif’s friends: Ruhel (Farhad Harun), Shafiq (Riz Ahmed), and Monir (Waqar Siddiqui) agree to accompany him to Pakistan. While there, the quartet decides to cross the border into Afghanistan just as United States begins its bombing campaign to topple the Taliban, Afghanistan’s ruling government, because it gave aid and comfort to Al-Qaeda and its leader Osama bin Laden, which the U.S. held responsible for the attacks against the U.S. on September 11, 2001.

During the chaos, Monir disappears and Asif, Ruhel, and Shafiq are captured by the Northern Alliance. They are flown by American military to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where they are imprisoned in Camp X-Ray and, later, Camp Delta. This is the first hand account of their experiences in Afghanistan and of their experiences during the two years the U.S. military held them prisoners at Guantanamo until they were released.

Director Michael Winterbottom and co-director Mat Whitecross blend dramatic reenactments, interviews with the surviving men, and archive news footage into a gripping docudrama that is a blunt expose of the out-of-control security measures that came about after 9/11. One’s feelings about this movie will depend in large part upon which side of the political spectrum one resides. If you think that the administration of President George W. Bush was correct in its attempt to skirt the Geneva Convention in regards to “enemy combatants” (which is what the administration dubbed Al-Qaeda fighters), then, you may not like The Road to Guantanamo. If you think that this administration has long been out of control, acted like war criminals, and/or broken both U.S. and international law, then, you may like this quite a bit.

Beyond politics, this film is a harrowing tale of what happens when people are falsely imprisoned. The Road to Guantanamo depicts how cruel it is to be lost in a bureaucracy that just won’t stop and listen, especially when a little extra concern on the part of American officials would have relieved this trio of much suffering.

Winterbottom and Whitecross’ choice to reenact the young men’s experiences and blend them with interviews of the actual young men themselves gives the tale, if not outright validity, then, certainly high drama. The directors engage us with their approach, and the actors in the reenactments give a rawness to their performances that in turn give their scenes a sense of verisimilitude. Although it seems a bit light and shallow at times, The Road to Guantanamo is a great story, and rather than read what I have to say about this movie, it’s best to let the real storytellers transport you to their harrowing world of imprisonment.

8 of 10
A

Friday, November 10, 2006

"The Most Dangerous Man in America" Tackles Still-Riveting Topic

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 54 (of 2011) by Leroy Douresseaux

The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers (2009)
Running time: 92 minutes (1 hour, 32 minutes)
PRODUCERS/DIRECTORS: Judith Ehrlich and Rick Goldsmith
WRITERS: Lawrence Lerew, Rick Goldsmith, Judith Ehrlich, and Michael Chandler
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Vicente Franco and Dan Krauss
EDITORS: Michael Chandler, Rick Goldsmith, and Lawrence Lerew
COMPOSER: Blake Leyh

DOCUMENTARY – History, Politics, War

Starring: Daniel Ellsberg (also narrator), Anthony Russo, Patricia Ellsberg, Mort Halperin, Egil “Bud” Krogh, Tom Oliphant, Janaki Tschannerl, and Howard Zinn

June marks the 40 anniversary of the New York Times’ first publication of excerpts from the Pentagon Papers (specifically June 13, 1971). Officially titled United States – Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense, the Pentagon Papers are a history of the United States' political-military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967. This study was initiated by the United States Department of Defense by order of then Secretary of State Robert McNamara.

Daniel Ellsberg, PhD, (born April 7, 1931) was a United States military analyst beginning in 1964 for the Pentagon under Secretary McNamara and then for the State Department as a civilian in Vietnam during the Vietnam War. Beginning in 1967, Dr. Ellsberg was at the RAND Corporation (a global policy think tank) where he worked on the top-secret study of classified documents that came to be known as the Pentagon Papers. This study was 7,000 pages long and was divided into 47 volumes.

Once a supporter of U.S. involvement in Vietnam, Ellsberg became disaffected with the Vietnam War. Beginning in late 1969, Ellsberg and a former colleague, Anthony Russo, secretly photocopied several copies of the Pentagon Papers. In 1971, Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times, which began publishing excerpts from the study. The Times’ publication precipitated a national political controversy because the Pentagon Papers exposed the top-secret military history of the United States involvement in Vietnam.

The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers is a 2009 documentary film from directors Judith Ehrlich and Rick Goldsmith. Nominated in 2010 for a best documentary Oscar, The Most Dangerous Man in America explores the events around the publication of the Pentagon Papers by focusing on Daniel Ellsberg, who also acts as the film’s narrator. Some of the film’s narrative is also taken from Ellsberg’s 2002 book, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers (Viking Press).

Daniel Ellsberg is certainly an important man in modern American political history, and The Most Dangerous Man in America gives us a glimpse into his personal history, including details into a childhood tragedy, his time in the U.S. Marine Corps, and his relationship, courtship, and eventual marriage to his second wife, Patricia Marx.

However, Ellsberg is a doorway into the secret history of the Vietnam War, and though much of that history has been revealed, thanks in large part to Ellsberg, the majority of Americans are likely still unfamiliar with how the U.S. really got involved in Vietnam. For a long time, the official story was that the U.S. stumbled into Vietnam, and that’s not true. Understanding American involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967 is crucial not only to understanding American foreign policy – how it works and why, but also to discovering how four U.S. Presidents lied to the American public about Vietnam.

Ellsberg and this film reveal that sometimes, even what is top secret should be made public. Perhaps, such revelations will protect the United States and its citizens both from dirty wars and also lying, even criminal Presidential administrations. None of the four Presidents mentioned here comes out looking good – especially Richard M. Nixon.

If one wants to be entertained, The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers isn’t exactly entertaining. It is sometimes dry and academic, although there are moments of riveting drama and even bits that seem like a spy thriller. Still, it is our responsibility as citizens to know the truth and the things that are hidden, both in hour history and in the times in which we live. From time to time, this documentary is even broadcast by PBS. Watch it on television or rent it, but The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers is an essential film for everyone from high school students to adults.

8 of 10
A

NOTES:
2010 Academy Awards: 1 nomination: “Best Documentary, Features” (Judith Ehrlich and Rick Goldsmith)

Monday, June 27, 2011

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

Review: "Client 9" Digs into Eliot Spitzer Scandal

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 51 (of 2011) by Leroy Douresseaux

Client 9: The Rise and Fall of Eliot Spitzer (2010)
Running time: 117 minutes (1 hour, 57 minutes)
MPAA – R some sexual material, nudity and language
WRITER/DIRECTOR: Alex Gibney
PRODUCERS: Maiken Baird, Alex Gibney, Jedd Wider, and Todd Wider
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Maryse Alberti
EDITORS: Plummy Tucker with Alison Amron
COMPOSER: Peter Nashel

DOCUMENTARY – Politics

Starring: Eliot Spitzer, Wayne Barrett, Joe Bruno, David Brown, Darren Dopp, Peter Elkind, Maurice “Hank” Greenberg, Noreen Harrington, Ken Langone, Roger Stone, Cecil Suwal, Hulbert Waldroup, and Wrenn Schmidt

Client 9: The Rise and Fall of Eliot Spitzer is a 2010 documentary film from Oscar-winning documentary filmmaker, Alex Gibney (Taxi to the Dark Side). Client 9 takes an in-depth look at the rise and fall of Eliot Spitzer, former State Attorney General and Governor of New York. The film includes an interview with Spitzer, who was elected as the 54th governor of New York in 2006 and later resigned when he was exposed as being involved in a high-priced prostitution ring.

The film reveals Spitzer’s beginnings as a crusading state’s Attorney General who went after Wall Street, big banks, and big insurance companies for fraud, predatory lending, price fixing, etc. Then, Client 9 chronicles his downfall by interviewing the key players, including Spitzer’s Wall Street adversaries (such as Hank Greenberg and Ken Lagone) and political enemies, (like Joe Bruno). Gibney also talks to some of the people behind Emperors Club VIP, the high-priced escort service from which Spitzer obtained call girls. The film also looks the crusade that defined Spitzer’s public and professional life – fighting corruption on Wall Street and in New York state politics. This film also suggests that shadowy and powerful figures from Wall Street and Albany (the state capitol) likely played a part in revealing Spitzer’s patronization of high-priced prostitutes.

In some ways, Client 9 is less about Spitzer than about the corruption against which he crusaded, particularly corruption on Wall Street. Even the Emperors Club, which provided Spitzer with call girls, is connected to Wall Street because it services some of the financial industry’s big players. Although Spitzer does participate in this documentary, the former governor turned cable television pundit is careful, even guarded about what he says, which is understandable, but this reticence ends up making him an ensemble player in what should be a starring role in his melodrama.

The film does offer startling insight into the way the U.S. Justice Department prosecutes crimes involving politicians. Also, the press and news media, which is obsessed with sex and scandal and overly reliant (by my estimation) on tips and leaks that offer salacious details, doesn’t come out looking too good.

Compared to Gibney’s other films, Client 9: The Rise and Fall of Eliot Spitzer isn’t great, but it is good. Ultimately, it barely skims the surface of the darkness behind Spitzer and the institutions and people behind his rise and especially his fall.

7 of 10
B+

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

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

Review: "Tupac: Resurrection" is the Story of Tupac by Tupac (Happy B'day, Tupac)

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 14 (of 2005) by Leroy Douresseaux

Tupac: Resurrection (2003)
Running time: 90 minutes (1 hour, 30 minutes)
MPAA – R for strong language and images of drugs, violence and sex
DIRECTOR: Lauren Lazin
WRITER: Lauren Lazin (treatment)
PRODUCERS: Karolyn Ali, Preston L. Holmes, and  Lauren Lazin
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Jon Else
EDITOR: Richard Calderon
Academy Award nominee

DOCUMENTARY

Starring: (voice) Tupac Shakur (archival)

Released theatrically in late 2003, the Lauren Lazin-directed documentary Tupac: Resurrection earned a 2005 Oscar nomination in the category “Best Documentary, Features.” The film is a look at Tupac Shakur’s life, especially his time in the public eye, and the story is told through Tupac’s own words. Ms. Lazin and her fellow filmmakers compiled the Tupac: Resurrection from home movies, photographs, and video and film footage from interviews, concerts, and news stories, as well as images and video recordings taken behind the scenes on video shoots, on film locations, and any place Pac went, lived, and played. Tupac: Resurrection’s narration is provided by Tupac himself via archival audio from the video and film footage used for this film, as well as from interviews, journal readings, poetry recitations, etc.

Tupac was a compelling figure and remains so even after his (some would say alleged) death, murdered by an unknown gunman. The film is riveting precisely because Tupac was and still is hard to ignore and an extremely controversial public personality. Tupac often said he’d be shot and murdered, so he often seemed to be speaking as if he were observing a life already lived. That makes listening to the archival audio eerie because it really seems as if he is speaking from beyond the grave, but Ms. Lazin deserves the credit for pulling off this kind of posthumous autobiography.

Tupac narrating his rise to fame is entrancing; he seems so ambitious and hopeful in spite of his early poverty and surroundings. It is, however, disappointing to watch fame turn him into a paranoid and arrogant celebrity jerk. When he was on the rise, the contradictions of his embrace of violence and misogyny and hope for peace and respect can be viewed as the inconsistencies of a young man struggling to form a philosophy or an ideology for his life. Later, when his legal troubles mount, and he publicly feuds with enemies, both real and imagined, he just seems sad, lost, and without an adequate support system – destined for an extra tragic end.

Still, Ms. Lazin should be commended for this fine film. It’s amazing both that every bit of this film is archival material and how she is able to give such a complete picture of the public figure that was Tupac. In fact, many public figures probably don’t realize how complete a portrait of their public lives can be made from publicly available visual footage and how those portraits of them may not be how they want to be remembered. Ms. Lazin, however, made an honest documentary in which the filmmaker really allows the subject to reveal himself… even from beyond the grave. Would Tupac like what he sees, or would he even care?

8 of 10
A

NOTES:
2005 Academy Awards: 1 nomination: “Best Documentary Features” (Lauren Lazin and Karolyn Ali)

2004 Black Reel Awards: 3 nominations: “Film: Best Theatrical” (Paramount Pictures); “Film: Best Song” (Tupac Shakur-performer and The Notorious B.I.G.-performer for the song "Runnin' (Dying to Live)"), and “Film: Best Soundtrack”

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

Oscar-Nominated "Gasland" is Fracking Good

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 40 (of 2011) by Leroy Douresseaux


GasLand (2010)
Running minutes: 107 minutes (1 hour, 47 minutes)
WRITER/DIRECTOR: Josh Fox
PRODUCERS: Trish Adlesic, Josh Fox, and Molly Gandour
EDITOR: Matthew Sanchez
Academy Award nominee

DOCUMENTARY

Starring: Josh Fox

GasLand is a 2010 documentary from writer/director Josh Fox. GasLand is Fox’s first documentary feature film, and it earned a best documentary Oscar nomination. Fox travels across the United States to examine the negative aspects of natural gas drilling. Fox focuses on communities in the U.S. impacted by natural gas drilling, specifically a process known as hydraulic fracturing or “fracking.”

Fox begins his film by telling his audience that he received a letter from a natural gas company offering to lease his family’s land in Milanville, Pennsylvania for $100,000 to drill for gas. That started Fox’s quest for information about natural gas drilling. He discovers that all across America, rural landowners get lucrative offers from energy companies wanting to lease their property. These companies want to tap into large, underground reserves of natural gas.

A hydraulic drilling process called fracking, this preferred method of drilling was developed by Halliburton. The evidence, disputed by energy companies and people sympathetic to them, is that fracking poisons water sources. From the heartland, across the South, and back to the Northeast, Fox finds people whose water is so contaminated by chemicals used in the fracking process that the water can burst into flame, even when lit by a match. Fox’s film questions whether natural gas is really a viable alternative to our dwindling energy resources. If it is, does its potential harmful effects to the nation’s water supply outweigh the benefits of natural gas?

Visually, GasLand is quite potent. It has a visual kick, and sometimes those visuals are poetic and lyrical. I don’t know how effective the film will be in the long term. While its premise is simple and its subject matter straightforward, GasLand seems overripe with information; there is just so much depicted here, particularly in terms of how many people are suffering because of fracking. Still, the film’s sense of urgency is palatable.

Environmental experts predict that finding fresh water is going to be a problem for many humans in the 21st century. Thus, the most effective element of GasLand is its portrayal of energy companies and their determination to extract natural gas through fracking, regardless of the environmental consequences. The men that run these companies seem not to have a care in the world that real people can be and are being negatively impacted by fracking. This means that GasLand is a call-to-arms, an activist documentary that must be seen simply because this is about all our futures.

7 of 10
A-

NOTES:
2011 Academy Awards: 1 nomination: “Best Documentary, Features” (Josh Fox and Trish Adlesic)

Review: "Waste Land" Finds Treasure in Trash

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 27 (of 2011) by Leroy Douresseaux

Waste Land (2010)
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN: Brazil, U.K.
Running time: 99 minutes (1 hour, 39 minutes)
DIRECTORS: Lucy Walker with Karen Harley and João Jardim
PRODUCERS: Angus Aynsley and Hank Levine
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Ernesto Herrmann and Dudu Miranda with Heloísa Passos (co-D.o.P.)
EDITOR: Pedro Kos
COMPOSER: Moby
Academy Award nominee

DOCUMENTARY

Starring: Vik Muniz, Fabio, and Tíao Santos

Waste Land is an Oscar-nominated documentary that follows an art project initiated by Brazilian contemporary modern artist, Vik Muniz. Waste Land documents the two years in which Muniz joined forces with the “catadores,” the garbage pickers working at Jardim Gramacho. Gramacho is one of the world’s largest landfills, and it serves Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. These pickers dig in the garbage and refuse to find recyclable material, a job for which they are paid $20 to $25 per day.

Muniz guided the pickers in a process in which they used recyclable materials from Gramacho to create large-scale portraits of themselves. These portraits were sold at art auctions in London and were also exhibited at the Museum of Modern Art in São Paulo. Along the way, Waste Land portrays the lives of the garbage pickers and their working conditions.

Waste Land is one of those pure documentaries in which the director (and, in this case, co-directors) point the camera, stand back, and let the magic happen. In that way, something is documented and the subject comes to life. The film depicts Vik Muniz as such an open-hearted and warm individual, so the pickers are drawn to talk to him. Muniz is so encouraging that when he reveals the portraits to his collaborators, the viewer will likely feel the joyful emotions of the pickers.

Best of all is how the film allows the pickers to slowly bring the viewer into their personal lives. Some even open up about their histories and personal tragedies, and the stories are poignant, sad, inspirational, and even beautiful. Waste Land reveals how connected we are and how much more we can be. It says that we can change each other’s lives, and that isn’t always a bad thing. Waste Land is one of the best films you will see all year.

8 of 10
A

NOTES:
2011 Academy Awards: 1 nomination: “Best Documentary, Features” (Lucy Walker and Angus Aynsley)

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

Review: Oscar-Winning "Inside Job" Calls Out Wall Street and its Congressional Ho's

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 23 (of 2011) by Leroy Douresseaux

Inside Job (2010)
Running time: 120 minutes (2 hours)
MPAA – PG-13 for some drug and sex-related material
WRITER/DIRECTOR: Charles Ferguson
PRODUCERS: Charles Ferguson and Audrey Marrs
CINEMATOGRAPHERS: Svetlana Cvetko and Kalyanee Mam
EDITORS: Chad Beck and Adam Bolt
COMPOSER: Alex Heffes
Academy Award winner

DOCUMENTARY

Starring: Matt Damon (narrator) Jonathan Alpert, Robert Gnaizda, Christine Lagarde, George Soros, and Eliot Spitzer

At the recent 2011 Academy Awards ceremony, Inside Job won the best documentary feature Oscar. Directed by Charles Ferguson (No End in Sight), Inside Job is about the financial crisis of 2007-2010. It provides a comprehensive analysis of the financial services industry’s systematic corruption of the United States. The film also looks at the subsequent consequences of that corruption: millions of people losing their jobs and homes, the worst recession since the Great Depression, and a near collapse of the global financial system.

Ferguson uses thorough research of financial issues and extensive interviews of key financial insiders, politicians, journalists, and academics. The director paints a portrait of a rogue industry that relies on powerful insiders to control government regulation of itself. Insiders in politics and academia also help to shape the financial services industry’s flow of information to the public. Filmed mostly in the United States, Inside Job connects the dots by visiting Iceland, England, France, Singapore, and China, where we see unemployment, foreclosed homes, shuttered factories, and tent cities for the homeless.

As he did in the excellent No End in Sight, Charles Ferguson presents a dizzying array of interviews, information, history, and even a few reluctant talking-head types as he explains how we got to the derivatives market, what that market did, and how we got to our current financial recession and malaise. Watch this film and Ferguson will make it clear that the financial crisis was an inside job because all the players: CEOs, corporate board members, banking chieftains, government regulators, Presidential cabinet appointees, university economic professors and directors, etc. are all insiders; they rig the system and suck up all the cash for themselves. We live outside their little world, but what they do can and often does harm our larger world.

Two things about this movie stand out. First, the movie informs us that, thus far, no one has gone to jail for causing the financial crisis. Secondly, Matt Damon’s narration of Inside Job transforms the film from mere documentary into a gripping account that is part journalism, part storytelling, and all take-down of the financial services and its overeager servant, the U.S. government.

Most of all, Inside Job is simply a great movie.

9 of 10
A+

NOTES:
2011 Academy Awards: 1 win: “Best Documentary, Features” (Charles Ferguson and Audrey Marrs)

Sunday, March 13, 2011

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

Review: Oscar-Nominated Doc "Restrepo" is a Real War Story

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 22 (of 2010) by Leroy Douresseaux

Restrepo (2010)
Running time: 93 minutes (1 hour, 33 minutes)
MPAA – R for language throughout including some descriptions of violence
DIRECTORS: Tim Hetherington and Sebastian Junger
CINEMATOGRAPHERS/PRODUCERS: Tim Hetherington and Sebastian Junger
EDITOR: Michael Levine
Academy Award nominee

DOCUMENTARY – War

Starring: Dan Kearney, LaMonta Caldwell, Sterling Jones, Kevin Rice, Juan “Doc” Restrepo, and the Men of Battle Company 2nd of the 503rd Infantry Regiment 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team

Restrepo is an Oscar-nominated documentary from Sebastian Junger, the author of The Perfect Storm, and photographer Tim Hetherington. Hetherington and Junger spent a year embedded with the Second Platoon, B Company, 2nd Battalion, 503rd Infantry Regiment of the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team in Afghanistan during their 15-month deployment.

Most of that time, they were hunkered down in the Korengal Valley in an outpost (OP) named OP Restrepo, which the soldiers named after their fallen comrade, Juan “Doc” Restrepo, a platoon medic killed earlier in the deployment. The filmmakers document the platoon’s brotherhood, hard work, fear, boredom, and joy.

Riveting, compelling, and harrowing, and even poignant, scary, and gut-wrenching in places, Restrepo is a pure documentary. By that, I mean the filmmakers, Hetherington and Junger, document their subjects without commentary and with only the camera as an indication that they are even present. Any opinions and feelings the viewer has are mostly the result of their on interpretations of what they see. They recorded; you decide.

Still, as good as this film is, Restrepo feels like it is missing something, and I still can’t figure out what it is I think is missing. Still, every American should watch at least a quarter of the film. That’s a little over 23 minutes. You can spare the time.

8 of 10
A

NOTES:
2011 Academy Awards: 1 nomination: “Best Documentary, Features” (Tim Hetherington and Sebastian Junger)

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

Review: Documentary Film, "Why We Fight," Answers the Question

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 177 (of 2006) by Leroy Douresseaux

Why We Fight (2005)
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN: USA/France/UK/Canada/Denmark
Running time: 98 minutes (1 hour, 38 minutes)
MPAA – PG-13 for disturbing war images and brief language
WRITER/DIRECTOR: Eugene Jarecki
PRODUCERS: Susannah Shipman and Eugene Jarecki
CINEMATOGRAPHERS: Sam Cullman, Joe Di Gennaro, Christopher Li, Etienne Sauret (director of photography), May Ying Welsh, Brett Wiley, and Foster Wiley
EDITOR: Nancy Kennedy

DOCUMENTARY – History

Starring: Joseph Cirincione, Gwynne Dyer, Dwight D. Eisenhower (archival), John S.D. Eisenhower, Susan Eisenhower, Chalmers Johnson, Donna Ellington, Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, Wilton Sekser, Franklin Spinney, William Kristol, Sen. John McCain, Richard Perle, Dan Rather, Wally Saeger, and Gore Vidal

It begins with President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s farewell address to the nation on January 17, 1961, then, the documentary that was a hit at the 2005 Sundance Film Festival, Why We Fight, begins its examination of the American military machine – the military industrial complex and asks the question "Why does American wage war?"

Along the way, this documentary becomes an unflinching look at the rise of the American Empire. Much of it filmed during the war in Iraq, Why We Fight also surveys and dissects a half-century of American military adventures. Using archival footage and interviews with peace activists, scholars, soldiers, government officials, journalists, and even a grieving father, Why We Fight scrutinizes and analyzes the political interests (Congress and the Presidency), economic interests (manufacturers of military vehicles, armament, equipment, etc.), and ideological factors (think tanks) that are behind American militarism – the relatively small group of people that really control a government that is supposedly of, by, and for the people.

Directed by Edward Jarecki (The Trials of Henry Kissinger), Why We Fight is both sober and compelling. It’s sober because it reveals that much of our military actions and campaigns going back to the atomic bombing of Japan were as much about the U.S. flexing its muscles and establishing itself as the dominate nation on earth as they were about self-defense. In some cases, it was more about imperialism than it was about defending the nation from enemies, as Jarecki’s film claims. Why We Fight is compelling because the interview subjects come from a broad spectrum of people who have worked in the upper echelons of the Department of Defense or are actively involved in covering the government as scholars or journalists. There’s even a former CIA operative.

When trying to answer the question of “Why do we fight?” much of the discussion uses the war in Iraq – from the build up to the beginning of the invasion of the country – as the frame of reference. At times, Why We Fight comes across as another one-sided documentary/screed against the war in Iraq. However, it has the grace to present the interviews, film footage (archival and recent), and history in a manner that allows the viewer to think for himself. There are a lot of people in this film, and they have a lot to say. There’s enough information from which the viewer can draw his own conclusions.

Sometimes, even good documentaries are compelling, but they’re like fast food. They are as forgettable as many regular non-documentary films. Why We Fight, however, seeks to educate and inform, and it wants to stay with you. Why We Fight has the audacity to feel that it is important and actually attempt to be an important movie. Jarecki offers us the opportunity to take him at his word, or simply watch, listen, and think. His own mind seems made up, but he presents things in a fashion that isn’t necessarily didactic. Just the facts, Jarecki tells us. This is how it is, but in the end, he doesn’t offer a pat conclusion. Why We Fight simply fades away with words of warning – a little something to take root in your mind.

8 of 10
A

Monday, August 14, 2006

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

Review: Danny Trejo Revealed in "Champion"

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 13 (of 2011) by Leroy Douresseaux

Champion (2005)
Running time: 81 minutes (1 hour, 21 minutes)
DIRECTOR: Joe Eckardt
WRITER: Cecily Gambrell
PRODUCERS: Joe Eckardt and Cecily Gambrell
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Vitaly Bokser, Dana Gonzales, and Daniel S. Haas
EDITORS: Joe Eckardt and Joseph Lorigo

DOCUMENTARY – Biography/Interview

Starring: Danny Trejo, Cecily Gambrell, Edward Bunker, Steve Buscemi, Dennis Hopper, Val Kilmer, and Robert Rodriguez

His body covered in tattoos, actor Danny Trejo has appeared in such films as Desperado, Con Air, and Spy Kids. Trejo is mostly known for playing tough guys, criminals, and villains. You’ll recognize him when you see him, and you may not be surprised to learn that Trejo has a past that includes substance abuse, drug dealing, and prison.

There is another side to Trejo. His troubled childhood, which included drug addiction, armed robbery, and extensive prison time, eventually led him to a career as a counselor, where his vocation became helping people who are struggling with alcohol, drugs, and gang-banging. That in turn led Trejo into acting, beginning with work in the 1985 film Runaway Train. The 2005 documentary Champion offers an intimate and detailed look at Trejo’s life and journey and includes testimonials from actors Steve Buscemi, Dennis Hopper, and Val Kilmer, among others.

The first hour of Champion mainly deals with Trejo’s troubled youth and a 20-year period from the 1950s to the late 1960s in which Trejo beat up people and/or robbed them, while selling drugs and doing time in juvenile and prison facilities. Although interesting, some of this first hour is repetitive or dry and slows the film. Then, Champion has a Saul-to-St. Paul moment and seems to suddenly open up, revealing the man who has a great big heart and a drive to help people. Champion is not a traditional documentary; in fact, it is essentially one long interview film. What the film ultimately documents is an inspirational story of how far up someone can come from being so down. Watch it and understand why Danny Trejo is indeed a champion.

7 of 10
B+

Friday, February 11, 2011

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

Fantastic "Exit Through the Gift Shop" a Strange Art Movie

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 107 (of 2010) by Leroy Douresseaux

Exit Through the Gift Shop (2010)
Running time: 87 minutes (1 hour, 27 minutes)
MPAA – R for some language
DIRECTOR: Banksy
PRODUCERS: Holly Cushing, Jaimie D'Cruz, and James Gay-Rees
EDITORS: Tom Fulford and Chris King

DOCUMENTARY

Starring: Thierry Guetta, Banksy, Shepard Fairey, Monsieur André, Space Invader, Zevs, and Rhys Ifans (narrator)

Exit Through the Gift Shop is a documentary that largely focuses on Thierry Guetta, a French immigrant to Los Angeles. Although he was a successful small businessman, Guetta also had an obsession with carrying his camera everywhere and constantly filming his surroundings – from inside his home and business (a vintage clothing store) to outside in public. On holiday in France, Guetta discovers that one of his cousins is Invader, an internationally known street artist.

Fascinated by his cousin’s art, Guetta turns his camera on the street artists and eventually meets such street art luminaries as Shepard Fairey (who created the Barack Obama “HOPE” poster), Borf, Ron English, and Buffmonster, among others. Eventually, Guetta attempts to make a documentary film from all the footage he has shot of street artists. After meeting the secretive and legendary Banksy, a British graffiti artist, stencil artist, and painter, Guetta’s project takes a surprising twist. Banksy takes over the filmmaking duties, and Guetta reinvents himself as the street artist “Mr. Brainwash” (or MBW).

There has been some speculation that Exit Through the Gift Shop is one big prank – the documentary film about street art that is essentially graffiti on the body politic of documentary filmmaking. This film could also be seen as a satire of the art scene and of media hype, especially hype around artistic or cultural events. However, as brief as this film is, Exit Through the Gift Shop does capture the mesmerizing power of art and also the ability of artists, especially rebels and innovators, to capture the public’s imagination.

Exit Through the Gift Shop heaps scorn on practically everyone who appears in the film and anyone who is involved in this narrative. In a subtle way, it disapproves of the way underground and outsider art has become commercialized, just another thing for rich people to co-opt with their cash. Is street art just more pop art? Still, the film cannot hide the fact that people are genuinely fascinated by art: arguing about art, deciding what constitutes art, and depicting how artists can astonish with the surprising mediums they use to present their art.

Whatever the truth is about the validity of the film’s content and subject matter, Exit Through the Gift Shop does something many films have a difficult time doing, captivating the audience from beginning to end. Its only fault may be that it doesn’t give us more of its delightful subjects and characters.

9 of 10
A+

Friday, December 31, 2010

Chilling "The Cove" is also Thrilling

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 95 (of 2010) by Leroy Douresseaux

The Cove (2009)
Running time: 92 minutes (1 hour, 32 minutes)
MPAA – PG-13 for disturbing content
DIRECTOR: Louie Psihoyos
WRITER: Mark Monroe
PRODUCERS: Paula DuPré Pesman and Fisher Stevens
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Brook Aitken
EDITOR: Geoffrey Richman
COMPOSER: J. Ralph
Academy Award winner

DOCUMENTARY - Environmental

Starring: Richard O’Barry, Louis Psihoyos, Mandy-Rae Cruikshank, Charles Hambleton, Hardy Jones, Hayden Panettier, and Roger Payne

The Cove is a documentary film that depicts the annual killing of dolphins at Taiji, Wakayama, Japan. The film won the Oscar for “Best Documentary, Features” at the 2010 (82nd Annual) Academy Awards. The Cove follows former dolphin trainer, Ric O’Barry’s quest to document the capture and slaughter of dolphins at Taiji, as part of a larger plan to end the capture of dolphins worldwide. O’Barry captured and trained the five dolphins used in the 1960s television show, Flipper.

After meeting O’Barry, former National Geographic photographer, Louie Psihoyos, founder of the Oceanic Preservation Society, decided to get involved with O’Barry’s cause. Psihoyos and a crew traveled to Taiji in 2007. There, using underwater microphones and high-definition cameras, they secretly filmed the slaughter of dolphins in an isolated cove.

The best part of The Cove, indeed, the key to its power, comes near the end of the film with the playback of the video featuring the killing of the dolphins. I don’t know if I was more shocked at the blood in the water or the dolphins’ thrashing. The blood was so thick that the pink-colored water looked like some kind of shake or malted drink. The film’s musical score by J. Ralph creates suspense and tension with stunning precision, while also being the perfect musical accompaniment to savage, senseless murder.

Before that sequence, much of the film focuses on three other themes or elements. First, the film details the task of getting by authorities in Taiji and setting up recording equipment, which is fun to watch. It has an almost special ops quality to it and reveals the tight filmmaking chops of Psihoyos and film editor, Geoffrey Richman.

The film also focuses on the prevalence of mercury in dolphin meat, in amounts far higher than is acceptable for human consumption. That’s interesting, but the film seems to lose its focus when it goes off on its mercury tangent. Another important element in the film is the focus on the role governments, environmental organizations (which is surprising), and groups from various industries play directly or indirectly in the slaughter at Taiji.

It is good and important that The Cove exists. I’m sure that there are a lot of people who do not know that this is happening. I didn’t until I first heard of this film. Is The Cove one of those so-called “important films?” The answer is a resounding yes. This film is important because what is happening in that cove at Taiji is a reflection of what we are doing to our planet, specifically the world’s oceans and the fish population.

Right now, we can be entertained by The Cove because it is a good movie. We’ll cry later because it will be a warning we ignored.

8 of 10
A

NOTES:
2010 Academy Awards: 1 win: “Best Documentary, Features” (Louie Psihoyos and Fisher Stevens)

Tuesday, November 23, 2010