Saturday, December 30, 2017

End of the Year: Documentary Feature

   Often, I always consider putting documentaries onto the end of the year list. I always refrain from this, because I feel that comparing narrative films to documentaries would require a complicated system, due to their vastly differing nature. However, I still want to acknowledge the various documentaries that I have seen this year. And not just those released this year, but just ones I happened to watch for the first time this year. So, here are the documentaries I've seen this year. Not necessarily ones that came out this year, but ones I happen to have seen. These are going to be ordered by means of recommendation, meaning those I recommend the most will be closer to the top, while those I don't recommend will generally go below. So, without further ado....

Tower(2016)


This is the first one, because, of the docs that are going to be featured here, this is the one I recommend the most. This is an animated account of the events of the 1966 mass shooting at the University of Texas at Austin, from the perspective of some who had witnessed it, from students caught in the crossfire to policemen responding to it in real time. These accounts provide a unique perspective of the incident, and shows how confusing and horrifying this situation can be if you're in the middle of it. A good example of this is that for much of the documentary, many recall that they assumed there were two shooters (instead of the one). This documentary brings you directly into the mist of this situation, and shows you its tragedy, but also the heroism that some displayed even in the chaos. In this era of mass shootings, this is a must-watch.

Icarus (2017) 

   The story of how one man's investigation into doping in amateur bicycling and help he receives from a prominent Russian anti-doping doctor ended up with that man stumbling onto a massive doping conspiracy by the Russian government is an interesting thriller in and of itself, before you remember that it is a real, ongoing story. It is eye-opening as to how pervasive this really was, and disturbing how intricate it was planned out with. It is a great expose on this issue, and with recent actions by the Olympic Committee, it is still an ongoing story.

OJ:Made in America (2016)

   This is an excellent companion piece to The People v. OJ Simpson. Made for ESPN's 30 for 30, it doesn't just cover the trial, but also is a comprehensive look into OJ's entire career, from football to Hertz spokesman to film star. It looks at how he had effectively been accepted by white America by assimilating and declining to get involved with African American causes. This would prove ironic when race would play a large factor in his trial (set in the backdrop of the aftermath of the LA riots). It also shows his life post-trial, and how he gradually alienated everyone who had stuck by him, even during the trial. It shows how OJ's life and career occupied a unique position in the intersection of race, celebrity, and sports during the late 20th century, and all three came to affect his life and his murder trial. This is perhaps as comprehensive as you could get with a documentary.

Red Army (2014)

   If you've seen Icarus, the revelations in that might put a damper on this documentary about the Soviet national hockey team, especially since the focus, Viacheslav "Slava" Fetisov, was apparently chair of the World Anti-Doping Agency. Still, this is a fascinating look into the Red Army Hockey Club and Hockey in the USSR in general, as recounted by Slava and some of the players themselves. It looks into the infamous unbeatable team, and explores how they got to be that powerful. However, there are also dynamics with a brutal coach and a authoritarian government which looms over their shoulders and tries to limit their interactions with the Capitalist west. Even if you have no interest in hockey, it is still an interesting history documentary on a very popular sport in the USSR

Jodorowsky's Dune(2013)

   Earlier this year, I read a book called "Shock Value", about the 70's horror renaissance. It was a decent enough book, and provided some good information about some of the classics from this era. I bring this up, because the book focused primarily on Dan O'Bannon, writer of Alien, and his involvement with Alejandro Jodorowsky's ultimately doomed adaptation of Frank Hubert's Dune was chronicled briefly. I remembered that's the focus of this documentary, and decided to pick it up. I'm glad I did. It is an interesting look into the process of making a film like this, and how people are brought together to make a film, and how it eventually can peter out from one thing or another. O'Bannon, French comic artist Moebius, HR Giger, and even Salvadore Dali were all involved with this film during it's production.  In some way, despite never actually being made, it was influential in its own way, with the former three mentioned going on to create the Alien franchise. The designs Jodorowsky and Moebius created are alone good recommendations to see this film, but it is also a fascinating look into what might have been. And, while it might have been an unwatchable mess, I am interested in seeing what might have been with this film.

The Farthest: Voyagers in Space (2017)

Released on PBS to honor the 40th anniversary of the launch of the Voyagers, this is a comprehensive look into the program, exploring its origin, how it was build, the composition of the Golden Record, and its eventual launch. It explores how scientists and engineers were able to overcome obstacles and problems during the production of the two crafts, and be able to launch this craft. It also explores how it made its various scientific discovers, and the sacrifices in other areas to make those. This is a fitting enough documentary to explaining the continuing endurance of the crafts after 40 years, and how they became the first man-made objects to leave the Solar System. The usual great PBS science documentary.
Sembene!(2015)

    I had really no knowledge of the subject of this documentary aside from a short skim on his Wikipedia page when I came across it, nor did I have any familiarity with African cinema in general. It certainly was enlightening in that regard, and I learned a lot about both subjects. This documentary on the radical Senegalese filmmaker Ousmane Sembene is in part an examination of his filmography, and his friend and biographer Samba Gadjigo trying to contemplate Sembene's legacy and their own personal friendship. It is a fascinating look into a man whose work captured the attitudes and problems facing post-colonial Africa, as well as a look into a region that is often neglected in world cinema. If you're interested in either, I do recommend seeing this film.

Five Came Back (2017)

   Netflix's much vaunted WWII documentary sees several filmmakers (among them Steven Spielberg, Francis Ford Coppola, and Guillermo del Toro), discuss other filmmakers (William Wyler, John Huston, and Frank Capra for the three listed) participation in the "Motion Picture Unit" of the US Army during World War II. It explores each of the filmmakers, what their careers were up to that point,  how they added their own unique perspective and experiences during their service, and how it affected each of them after the war had ended. Whilst the "famous directors talking famous director" is a bit gimmicky, the actual stories are each unique and interesting in their own way, and sort of encapsulate the American experience on both fronts. If you're into World War II, this'll provide a less explored topic in most histories of the war.
June 17th, 1994 (2010)

Another 30 for 30 about OJ, though this takes a completely different route. It intersects coverage of OJ's chase in his Bronco on the titular date with other sports events happening that day. These range from Golf master Arnold Palmer's final round at the US Open, New Yorkers celebrating the victory of the Rangers in the Stanley Cup, and the Game 5 of the NBA Finals between the Houston Rockets and the New York Knicks. This admittedly odd conceit actually works well in terms of juxtaposition, showing the relative tranquility of Palmer's round or jubilation at the Ranger ticker tape parade with the tension from Simpson's chase. It especially works when the clips start to interact, with newscasters (including Bob Costas) at the NBA finals determining how to cover the OJ chase in the midst of the game. A fascinating and effective experimental documentary, I certainly do have the inclination to watch it again.

Exporting Raymond (2010)

    This was the last doc I saw this year (having only seen it hours ago). It looks at Everyone Love Raymond creator Phil Rosenthal's attempts to adapt the show for Russian audiences, and the enormous difficulties that he faces. He finds that some themes that he thought universal were actually quite hard to translate in some culture, but other themes and ideas (especially the persistence and interference of network executives) are actually universal. It's a good look into how television shows like this are produced in Russia, and how shows like Raymond are adapted for non-American audiences. Just as someone interested in how American ideas are adapted by non-American cultures, that was probably the best part.

An American in Madras (2013)

    Despite being half-Tamil myself and both my parents having come from Tamil Nadu, I have little knowledge of Kollywood, or Tamil film industry. That was perhaps why this was more of a personal enlightenment. Ellis R Dugan was an American filmmaker who found himself in India, and worked in Tamil Nadu for over 15 years, directing many very popular films with some of the biggest Tamil stars. When I watched the film with my mother, while many of the films had been before her birth, and she didn't know Dugan by name, she had recognized a lot of the actors and the songs. (The former because a lot of them ended up becoming political figures in the state). It was a nice look into a part of the history of what is essentially my ancestral region, and a little bit more on the history of Kollywood. Even you aren't Indian or Tamil, it still is pretty interesting story about an American making films in a foreign country.

     

The Lovers and the Despot (2017)

I wrote an entire review about a book I read on this exact topic (The kidnapping of South Korean director Shin Sang-Ok and his actress wife Choi Eun-hee by Kim Jong-Il), so I knew the story of this pretty well. While it was nice to hear Choi describe her experience, along with friends and associates, the doc's leading problem is a lack of details. Even if I didn't know this story, that part would've still bothered me. There is little on the films made by Shin during their captivity, or any details on how Kim Jong-Il was, or why he kidnapped them. Granted, yes, it can't be as detailed as a book, but the lack of substantive detail  is apparent. Still, if you want the basics of this strange story, I think this'll do nicely. 

Ghosts of Ole Miss (2012)

   Another 30 for 30 (spoiler, the next is also a 30 for 30) dealing with the successful Football season for the University of Mississippi team in 1962, which corresponded with the riots surrounding James Meredith's enrollment into the University (the first African American to do so). It is an decent enough recounting of both events from many of the participants (including Meredith himself), but aside from one instance of Meredith not being able to attend a Football game, the two don't really interact in a significant way. It feels like just two events that just happened to be around the same time, and the filmmaker is trying to derive some meaning from that, rather than treat it like a coincidence. Maybe if perspective was exchanged on the issues, it could've worked, but it felt off as is.

The U (2009)

    The final 30 for 30 for this year, this is about the University of Miami's football team during the 80's, and how it went from an underfunded operation to a very successful team. It was also ostensibly using that to explore Miami during the 80's, and how the team became an icon, but in practice, it mostly focuses on the team and its successes and failures. That is fine, but I felt the occasional intersections of Miami culture was a bit superfluous. It was just me, it is perfectly serviceable and accessible to a non-sports fan.
Lost in La Mancha (2002)

This is close to the bottom, because I couldn't finish it. Unlike the surreal, detailed, and fascinating look into an unmade film like Dune above, this look into the making of Terry Gilliam's unfinished adaptation of Don Quixote (called The Man Who Killed Don Quixote) was not particularly interesting. It was intended as a making-of feature, which it feels most like, but that works best for a film that's actually finished. It works significantly less knowing that the film isn't finished. Maybe the part I didn't see would've been actually had some intrigue, with production ultimately stalling the film until this year (editing was finished on the film just last month), but the beginning was not promising. Who knows, maybe if the finished film is good, I'll go back to this.

Voyeur (2017)

    I'll admit, there was one primary reason I watched this: the events depicted (Gerald Foos, owner of the Manor House Motel, spying on his guests through a system of fake vents) happened near where I grew up.  The motel is demolished now, but I easily could've driven by it at some point. So, imagine my surprise when it turned out to be more about famed journalist Gay Talese writing first a New Yorker article and then a book on Foos. That should've been a sort of interesting look at how these sorts of articles are written, but this feels off. That might be because it seems to play devil's advocate on Foos (the only reason he isn't being prosecuted for what he did is the statue of limitations), which doesn't exactly put Talese himself in the best light. It probably wasn't intended by the creators, but comes off that way to the viewers. Also, it doesn't really much actual fact-checking aside from one episode where Talese is confronted by a Washington Post reporter, who challenges the account, which is resolved quickly off-screen, but highlights that little fact-checking was shown on screen. As a result, it feels  insular and fishy, and even if all of it was true, it still probably should've acknowledged Foos' behavior more as creepy and, you know, illegal. That is probably the main reason it is the lowest one in terms of recommendation.

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

So, yeah, all the documentaries I saw this year. I hope you  seek out some of these, and join me in the next few days as I rank the films of 2017.



Saturday, December 2, 2017

Current Film Reviews: November Criminals

    There is one, and only one reason I decided to watch this film. Despite the fact it has been available on demand for a few weeks, only now have reviews appeared. My sister has surmised that it was because it wasn't out in theaters. That is likely true, but it seemed odd that no one was talking about a film that has technically already been released. I mean, you could buy or rent this film, and watch it beginning to end. The trailers were savaged for their seeming portrayal of a typical white savior narrative (which, having watched the film, it is, spoiler), but only now have two actual reviews come up in preparation for the release date next week. This, despite widespread availability since Nov. 7, apparently made so little of an impression on the culture. And I could see why.

     Based on the book by Sam Munson, we follow the story of Addison Schacht (Ansel Elgort), who we see dropping off his application for the University of Chicago with his female companion Phoebe or "Digger" (Chloe Grace Moretz), with 22 pages in response to the question "What are your best and worst qualities?" I don't know why that was particular germane to the rest of the film, but we continue as they travel to their favorite hotspot in Washington DC. There, Addison and Digger met their friend, Kevin Broadus (Jared Kemp). When they leave, however, someone walks into the coffee shop, and kills Kevin. Addison hears a brief remark about this being gang-related, and, deciding that nobody is paying attention to this story because of this (despite the extensive coverage on the news and the police investigation, and the fact that a detective later tells him they don't know if it is gang related, and apparently haven't heard testimony from any of his other friends), decides to investigates his death. This  investigation ... doesn't actually go very far, but it apparently brings him and Digger into the brink of danger. Apparently.  (the danger is not that apparent)


     This film is.... in focus. You can tell what is happening. Chloe Moretz and David Straithairn (who plays Addison's dad) are decent in their performances. It was coherent in terms of narrative and cinematography. I don't really know what else is okay.

     Where do I start? Well, you could tell by my larger than normal snark in the synopsis that the plot isn't that good, primarily relying on "show, don't tell", (because based only on what they show, the plot would not be able to happen otherwise), and relies on contrives and the main character not thinking for 5 minutes. It could've worked if (Spoiler) He decided that it was not his place to investigate, and try to handle the grief in a way that he could understand that some things he can't control, like was implied with how he deals with his deceased mother. But no, he manages to solve it (accidentally, because, once again, he doesn't think), and it turns out well for him.  Oh, yeah, and that U. Chicago application is completely tangential to the proceedings. I heard that was the center of the entire book. I feel like it should've been something that the events of the film could've built up to.(Spoilers) Ansel Elgort decides to piss away the goodwill he received for Baby Driver by giving a non-committed performance full of "dull surprise" expressions. He and Chloe Moretz have no chemistry, and their attempts at romance are painful to watch. It's only an hour and 25 minutes, but it feels so much longer, with the tedium of him tepidly investigating and constantly (and rightly) being told not to. Simultaneously, because of the latter, it feels like nothing really happens until the final act. Nothing was accomplished by Addison, except when he stumbles on it. There are shots in the film that, in theory, should work, but are so mangled, they become unintentionally funny. The director is competent, having helmed a pretty good retelling of the making of Psycho in 2012's Hitchcock , but here, when it's not interesting shots done wrong, it's mostly generic looking and feeling.  As for the white savior narrative, yeah, while some of those complaints are exaggerated (one of them from the The Mary Sue claimed that Addison gave Kevin a book in the trailer because that is what a white person does to uplift a black person in a white man's burden narrative. In the actual film, they're exchanging books, with Addison giving Kevin the Aeneid, and Kevin giving Addison a James Baldwin book), but their basic complaint is true. Kevin is a driving force for Addison, less in the sense of a friend trying to honor a friend, as the movie seems to think, but as a way for Addison to self-actualize through the experience. This line from the Mary Sue article I linked is particularly prescient: "That friend is played by Jared Kemp, who is billed so low on IMDB it’s hard to imagine he’s more than a featured extra in his own story." That is very, very true. The character of Kevin Broadus appears in the film just as much as he does in the trailer, despite his centrality to the plot. We don't see or know much about him from observation, except how Addison is affected by his death, and his own friendship. Once again, it is less about the black person killed than how his white friend was affected by it. It leads to a larger problem with the film. None of the characters are well-developed. That whole "show, don't tell" problem is very apparent, where we are told things about characters, instead of them being shown. As a result, the events hold little interest, because these character don't resonate, and what happens to them doesn't really have any impact on the viewer.

      Based on the fact it was released on video on-demand before theaters, I was expecting some sort of complete disaster. A fascinatingly bad film with A-list talent (the way Suburbicon was a couple months ago) that Sony clearly thought a dud, and wanted some money back on. This is not it. Oh, it's certainly a dud, but it's not interestingly bad. It's just boring and awful, to the effect of a really bad TV movie. I certainly cannot think of any reason to see this, especially in the theater. If you're still interested, it's still available on Google services, so just watch it there. But don't watch it. This was fun, though. Exposing an obscure film , despite finding it terrible.

Friday, December 1, 2017

Current Film Review: Justice League

    You know, I had higher expectations for this film. Wonder Woman was good, and Joss Whedon was brought in help with the reshoots, following an incredibly tragic death in director Zac Synder's family. Whilst the trailers weren't impressive, it didn't seem like the disasters that Man of Steel, Batman V. Superman, and Suicide Squad turned out to be. Maybe they were starting to get the idea. Maybe this would continue the streak Wonder Woman started. Maybe they could create a viable cinematic universe. After seeing the film.... Let's get this over with.

       Based on the DC team created by Gardner Fox, we start immediately after the events of BvS. While the world is in shock following Superman's (Henry Cavill) death, Batman (Ben Affleck) is seeing strange creature appear across the world, and trying to assemble a league of heroes with Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) to try to protect the Earth from impending threats. This includes Arthur Curry, alias Aquaman (Jason Mamoa); Barry Allen, alias Flash (Ezra Miller); and Vic Stone, alias Cyborg (Ray Fisher).  Sure enough, Steppenwolf (CiarĂ¡n Hinds), a member of the New Gods (Jack Kirby's group of powerful beings in the DC universe) and commander from Apokolips (in the comics, the realm dominated by Darkseid), comes to Earth to gain the three Motherboxes, which he had previously fought a war on Earth with the power, only for an allaince of humans, Amazons, Atlantians, Green Lanterns, what have you, and which have reactivated with Superman's death. Now, Batman and Wonder Woman must assemble the League and stop Steppenwolf from gaining the three Motherboxes. They may even get some help from beyond the gra.... Okay why do I have to treat that like it's a spoiler. It was obvious this was going to happen, but...

        Good things: Ben Affleck and Gal Gadot (as they were in the last film), Ray Fisher as Cyborg, Ezra Miller (in parts) as the Flash, decent McGuffin, creative creature design, some decent fight scenes, some good jokes (likely the product of Whedon), a decent enough homage to a classic comic in one of the, oh yeah, there are two after-credit scenes for this. Some nice nods to the DCU.

       The main problems with this film are the same problems with Batman v. Superman and Suicide Squad. Like BvS, it is boring, a slog that drags on too long with its portentous alleged grandiosity. Despite the use of iconic characters and settings from a shared universe with large history, it just doesn't click on screen, with its action scenes simply not illiciting excitement and its character moments either clearly cut down, or pretentious. The overuse of CGI doesn't help in the former's case. It resembles a DC video game at times. Not even a modern one. One that might have been on the Playstation 2. Which brings me to the Suicide Squad comparison, which involves very heavy studio interference. It is abundantly clear this was hacked up by the studio after Whedon finished the reshoots and editing. Like Suicide Squad, this makes the film very haphazard, going from a sequel very much fitting in the universe of the previous films, to an Avengers-style character romp. It's jarring, and the retouched shots, like the bad CGI, create a very ugly looking film. It looks low budget, which is not a criticism that should not be for a film that cost $300 million to make.

       This was not as bad as Batman v. Superman or Suicide Squad. That's not an endorsement, given that this was merely bad, as opposed to inconceivably awful. If you, for whatever reason, liked the other DCEU films, you might like this. If you didn't, but Wonder Woman got your hopes up, well, it turned out how you expected. I really don't have much else to say. This was like cold, stale oatmeal. It was bad in a generic, forgettable fashion.

     I am going to do a double feature, because I want to share with you something that I had found. A film that has technically has been released for several weeks on the internet, but is only now getting reviews ahead of it's theatrical release. The November Criminals. Never heard of it? Well, let us take a look into it.