The Kid Stays in the Picture - 2002 - Dir. Burstein

I didn't care for this documentary. To some degree, I felt like I was just listening to Robert Evans tell me about himself... something I'm sure he enjoys and has had a lot of practice doing. Considering the doc is based on his autobiography, and features his voice, I think it's safe to say we are very much on Robert Evan's turf in this movie. And I'm not sure I really enjoyed feeling that way. There's a kind of manufacturedness about the story to begin with. Like he so badly wants it to fit into the normal story-telling arc, a nobody to somebody story with him exploding and learning his lesson and then an eventual redemption. No matter how hard he tries though, he can't hide the obvious. His life is not a movie and he never is as sympathetic as much as he would like to be. For example, he talks about his true love: Ali McGraw and how he loses her to Steve McQueen. We're told this was important emotional event for him. The film neglects, however, his six other wives that came before and after. So it just feels like it is there because they needed to have a Girl in the story. Stir up some sympathy for the dope. He's also pictured as extremely passive. Like his discovery is indicative of the rest of his life, he just hangs out near famous people and great shit happens. I dunno, I feel like I could go on and nitpick how the thing continues to fail on several levels... but I think you get the point. It's just very cold and empty.

Robert Evans will make you pay.

Into the Abyss - 2011 - Dir. Herzog

Probably sedated for what people expect of Herzog these days. You know, being that it's about people on death row (that's the starting point, at least). The man has respect for his subjects and the topic of the death penalty. And it clearly shows, there's no goofy voice over, no albino alligators. So if you are going in with that narrow view of what to expect, you may be a little disappointed. It feels like his older documentaries. It's not a somber Death Penalty film by any means but more of an document of how a group of people are coping with the aftermath of a violent crime. Herzog's strengths do really show in this picture though. I feel like he has a great eye for America. It's depicted with great admiration but he is still very aware of its blemishes and never shies away from them. His tangents are more controlled, more thoughtful. I admit, I'm pretty biased. It's Herzog doing what he does best, being himself, so I had a great time watching it. I like that we get to watch a movie about people on Death Row and we don't have to hear about Death Row the entire time. I like the amount of perspective given from the criminals, to the victims, to an almost complete stranger whose rants Herzog clearly fell in love with. It just feels like a refreshing documentary on perhaps a somewhat tired topic.

This guy is so mad to be stuck in such a tiny picture.

Bombay Beach - 2011 - Dir. Har'el

Har'el popped up on a list of new filmmakers to keep and eye on. I'm a fan of Beirut's music and the trailer looked interesting enough so I made a point to see the film when I had a chance. And I'm glad I did! It follows the lives of three people who live in one of the poorest communities in Southern California. The area looks like a barren wasteland, desert as far as the eye can see littered with the decaying remains of society. The film is filled with the skeletons of cars, trailers, homes, and animals. Dead Fish everywhere. A Donkey corpse tangled in barb wire. There's some pretty gritty stuff. Meanwhile, we have a young boy on a plethora of prescription meds raised by his ex-militia parents, an old man who barely manages to take care of himself selling bags of cigarettes, and a teen for South Central with dreams to play for the NFL. It's beautifully shot and balances its seriousness and playfulness beautifully. Probably the most interesting aspect of the film is the infusion of choreographed sequences. All of a sudden, these people begin to dance or... well, they have their own little music videos. They could have come off as excessive or cheap but Alma pulls it off well. They feel like personal and intimate expressions of the subjects. A very well-balanced and engaging documentary.

Tragedy.

Sweetgrass - 2009 - Dir. Castaing-Taylor

"Anthropological" gets thrown around a lot when I hear talk of this movie, which I dunno... I find that term to be a little... iffy? I suppose it applies, but I feel like the word is used as an attempt to remove the film from the arena of Cinema and into Science, as if that makes it more trustworthy or reputable. True, it would be hard to call the film biased, but like anything and like science, IT IS. It has an argument, a perspective. One of those. Of course, since the director is an Anthropologist... it seems even more apt. But let me refrain from continuing this non-argument that I've already wasted so much time with. You can call the movie whatever the fuck you want (Let me just point out what a waste of time all those sentences were). The movie is about Sheep. Sheep being led across mountains. Which is not done anymore. I watched it for two reasons, 1) I like Sheep. I think they are fun and great to watch. 2) It promised to be minimal. I love a good minimalist documentary. I just want to watch stuff happen. No voice-over or wonky editing. I don't want some fat prick telling me what he thinks and then cracking wise. The movie delivered on both fronts. Therefore, it is a slow movie. There's very little explanation of what is going on. Almost none. So you spend a lot of time watching farmers do stuff. I would also say that it is a beautiful movie, though. There are some gorgeous shots in it. There are these strange protuberance of humor in the film, especially around the halfway point. But you know... it's not laugh out loud or anything. NO LULZ HERE. You know, I'd say, you probably know the kind of movie this is. If you're in that mood, DO IT.

Sweet, grass.

Catfish - 2010 - Dir. Joost/Schulman

I gave into the viral marketing campaign and made sure it seek out the film to find out it's SHOCKING TWIST. Which you know can't be that shocking because... well... it's a documentary. But I bit anyway. And the shocking twist is about as shocking as you might expect... and probably IS what you would expect it to be. To start off, let me just say that I wasn't a fan of our subject, Nev. He kinda... seemed like a douche. That aside, the premise of the film takes over pretty quickly and holds our attention as unlikable as I might have found our subject to be. It's paced slow enough, and everyone in the theater knows something shifty is around so a lot of the movie is seeing if you could figure it out before they do. Or at least, trying to solve the mystery. When it's revealed. It feels pretty good and it is actually handled pretty well considering. It's an emotionally satisfying ending, I suppose. A lot of people question the authenticity of this documentary... as well they should: It's a documentary. But honestly, with something like this I have no issue with thing re-filmed/staged/whatever. It's not like it is making much of an argument. To be honest, I found it engaging and entertaining. If it's completely fiction, I don't give a damn. A fine little piece of entertainment.

Why, hello! I'd like to Friend you on Facebook!

Capturing the Friedmans - 2003 - Dir. Jarecki

If you like movies about Child Molestation, then this is the documentary for you! It creeped me out, which I suppose isn't a stretch considering it's subject: the convicted Father-Son team of child molesters in suburban Long Island. Perhaps what ends up being the most disturbing aspect of it is the film's own ambiguity in regards to whether or not their guilt is justified. It doesn't take a strong stance exactly, but simply repeatedly suggests that all is not what it appears. So by the end of the film, we're left hanging, having either seen the up close and personal lives of a family where two of the members committed awful acts OR the jailing of an innocent. To be honest, the family dynamic exposed by the plethora of home video the Friedmans' kept is unnerving enough but to have the insinuations of child molestation underneath is the Icing on the cake. The terrible, terrible cake. Their constant clowning throughout the process, either as a bizarre way of coping with the situation or just... I don't know what, becomes pretty surreal at times. Either way, it's a well-crafted documentary and Jarecki seems to have pretty surprisingly open access considering the situation (that he got the home videos and interviews at all seems lucky). Worth the watch if you want to feel unsure and unsettled.

GOOD TIMES!

The Cave of Forgotten Dreams - 2010 - Dir. Herzog

God bless, Werner Herzog. That's all I have to say. The man knows how to get me going. I have to say, that this wasn't exactly my favorite of his films. The subject matter itself didn't strike me as exciting or as interesting as say The Antarctic or a Man who lives with Grizzlies. Herzog manages to sell the material though. His passion pushes us through it, excites us. Or at least, it excites me! But if anything, there's something very impressive (and telling) in what he managed to assemble considering the limitations put upon him. He had limiting shooting time and limited crew, so a little has to go a long way. He finds a story and thoughts worth pondering in the smallest details of the paintings, in the curves of the walls. Herzog wants us to inspect every minute detail of the painting. 3D only aids his case. It doesn't take over the film by any means. The opening credits are pretty stunning, though, and perhaps the most showy of the 3D. The film is still filled with expected Herzogian rants and tangents. Playful handling of his subjects. He made no qualms about exposing the epilogue with the radioactive albino alligators. Clearly, doing so amused him. Which is what works in this film and in most other Herzog films: he follows the trail he wants, and if we're willing to go along, we'll probably enjoy ourselves.

Which one is the bigger nutcase? You'll be surprised.

The Most Dangerous Man in America - 2009 - Dirs: Ehrlich/Goldsmith

Knowing absolutely nothing about Daniel Ellsberg, I was wondering how he became the most dangerous man in America. I suppose leaking Top Secret documents revealing some of America's secrets about the Vietnam war would do that. The documentary follows Ellsberg's early life as a fine, upstanding Patriotic American, who enthusiastically and voluntarily served time in Vietnam to his eventual shift to becomes an Enemy of the State. I feel like there is a somewhat uneven storytelling issue when is comes to Ellsberg's family life, if only because it can be pretty focused on how he met his wife (which was, naturally, a great sea change for him) but then I feel like I miss chunks of it and then all of a sudden he's divorced with two children. I don't mean to be a Nosey Nancy by any means but there was a lack of narrative smoothness in that respect. The rest of the doc is smooth as smoothed butter. Oh! Except for the animated sequences, which are rare but stick out like a shitty looking sore thumb. Anyway, Ellsberg's story is particularly potent because of his 180 degree change and I feel like it's rare to get such an indepth look into the whistleblower and the whistleblowing in general. The subject matter is especially interesting these days with all the wikileaks and talks of transparency and whathaveyou. It's strong documentary except for such nitpicking and certainly leads to some pondering about our relationship with our government (Man, Nixon sure was a hostile SOB!).

DANGER!

ABC Africa - 2001 - Dir. Kiarostami

I've only seen one other Kiarostami film previous to this, it was not a doc so they don't exactly compare. It feels a little funny to critique the documentary about children dying of AIDS but I thought this could have been a little better! I guess, really my primary issue is that it looks like Kiarotstami just edited together a mildly organized vacation. The reason it looks that way is because that's what it is (sorta, he went location scouting and ended up just using that footage). This does two things, one bad, one good. On the bad, there's a kind of haphazard feel to many portions of the movie. It just FEELS like something that wasn't intended to be a movie. On the flip side, however, it also seems to convey a kind of atmosphere that perhaps a planned doc might lose. There's a spontaneity about it as if we're wandering side by side with Kiarostami. Even the portion that takes place in complete darkness contributes to this flow. He doesn't interrupt it with voice overs or heavy handedness, letting his footage speak for itself. The film is especially adept at capturing moments when it's at its best. However, I am of two minds because when occasionally it fell into moments of Kiarostami home videos, I felt like it was doing injustice to a topic that deserves far more respect.

Lucky kid... I wish I had a hoop...

Stephen Tobolowsky's Birthday Party - 2005 - Dir. Brinkmann

I'm the kind of sucker who would watch a movie just to see what Stephen Tobolowsky is doing in it. Granted, he's probably not doing anything terribly interesting but I'm always checking in to make sure. I think Birthday Party ended up being what I expected it to be. Entertaining, sometimes a little disappointing, and probably a little more sentimental than I might have liked. Well, maybe the sentimentality isn't the problem. In fact, it should be expected that when a movie is a bout an actor telling stories on his birthday, that there is going to be sentimentality involved. I suppose maybe at times it seems a little forced or a little on the nose. Tobolosky is often calling for toasts to various people and things. And there's something that just feels a little too set-up about Stephen standing in front of a room telling lengthy stories. Cameo appearance by Anna Farris seems very bizarre since she hardly is featured but is one of the few who speaks directly to the camera in private. Sort of like showing off that Anna Farris is around. But they are entertaining stories for the most part. Maybe not as profound as he might make them seem, being that we're separated by the screen, simple story telling can often lose it's power. The tone of the movie is at it's best when Stephen is more relaxed, cooking sausages rather than when he's clowning about in front of a crowd. A nice way to kill some time and certainly needed if you like watching Tobolowsky.

Genius.

How Much Wood Could a Woodchuck Chuck - 1976 - Dir. Herzog

Sort of a mini-documentary. Or just a normal documentary, I guess. "It's forty minutes long" is what I'm saying here! Herzog is capturing the World Livestock Auctioneer Championship. There are a handful of interviews in the beginning, some shots of Pennsylvania, but I would say the majority of the film is watching auctioneers strut their stuff. So the length is really appropriate length for the film. Any longer and I might have started to pull my hair out. That isn't to say that the subject matter isn't interesting. It's fun to see how all of the auctioneers do what they do. And rather hypnotizing. The scope of the film is a little limited. Apart from the opening when the auctioneers talk about their "craft." There isn't much to the movie apart from the actual auctioneering. I would have gotten a kick out of speaking with a few more people. There's something kind of funny when people are filmed talking about a subject about which they certainly don't seem to have a lot to say. Even the auctioneers don't have much to say repeating the mantra "Practice makes perfect" and go through how they began to practice. The movie is nice in depicting the atmosphere of the Championship. There seems to be something inherently engrossing about the film to someone like me who is very distant from that world, and also somewhat amusing.

Cattle! You are all just Cattle! It makes me sick!

Capitalism: A Love Story - 2009 - Dir. Moore

I haven't seen a Michael Moore movie since Bowling for Columbine came out. I just find him awfully smug... or I dunno. I generally don't disagree with him. But often times, I'd rather just read an article. I don't need his jokey bits and "clever" illustration (we know he's not getting into the wall street offices, he knows he's not getting in, no one would expect that he be let in, so why bother?!). I gave in to this one because I do love a good anti-capitalism rant. Probably my previous experience with these kinds of movies, made this a bit less impact-full. Maybe I'm just too cynical but generally my reaction kept being "Yeah, and?" It's a little like The Corporation-lite, with schmaltzy tragedy thrown in. I dunno, there were so many sad crying people in this movie. I felt like I wanted more facts, more dates, more damning evidence. Of course, all this awful shit will make families upset, seeing it just makes me feel like Moore is trying to pull at my heart-strings rather than actually try and speak to me intellectually. I mean, it's Moore so I guess this IS more for mainstream consumption. For people who'd rather watch a movie than read. On a lesser note, Michael Moore looks like an exhausted old woman in this movie. It looked like any minute he was going to melt into the ground. I was always unhappy when he was onscreen... which was a lot.

That's guy's hand is HUGE! :o

Symbiopsychotaxiplasm: Take One - 1968 - Dir. Greaves

What I think is especially neat about this movie is that as you watch it, it does seem to be shaped as the movie goes on. Rather then there being a strong premise and we follow closely to that, there does seem to be an organic nature to the way the movie proceeds. Naturally, Greaves had an idea as to what he wanted to happen and seemed to plan ahead of time to a degree. And editing in the end shapes the story more than anything else. But the movie does kind of have an organic narrative that develops within this very free-form and experimental doc. It's also a pretty humorous movie. Greaves is entertaining to watch direct while trying to answer questions about what all these people are really doing in the film. While the crew ponder the meaning of the film, often times the pretentious language and high-handed explanations that occur are pretty amusing on their own. It's also just interesting to watch because of the way everyone is reacting as they are filmed. Greaves talks about how the Uncertainty Principle inspired the film and it is pretty clear. People's behavior DO change obviously when they are filmed, reality TV has long been proof of that, but it's neat to this late sixties take on it. The movie can be a little slow, even though it's under ninety minutes. But I feel like there's enough going on that I would definitely rewatch.

The Joys of Film making!

F for Fake - 1974 - Dir. Welles

I had no concept about what this movie was going to be like before watching it. So I was pretty surprised to say the least, especially coming from Orson Welles. It seems like Kane overshadows this later work, which I suppose makes sense, especially since Kane is way more accessible. It's Welles' examination of authenticity or FAKERY and naturally, he goes about it in a bit of a sneaky way. The movie is incredibly playful which also makes it unlike a normal documentary. Ostensibly, it is about Elmyr de Hory, a professional art forger, and his biographer Clifford Irving, who has been declared a hoax after writing a fake biography about the last days of Howard Hughes. There are a few deviations from this basic premise and it's a little tough to follow at first, Welles drops a lot of information on us at once. And he also has some pretty intense editing to begin with, which is probably my favorite part. It's like a precursor to the wild editing we're so used to seeing these days, but all seventies. It's pretty neat to see that Welles had a hand in it back in the day. As if his name wasn't already big enough! I have to say that I struggled to keep up with some chunks of the movie. Especially when it involved Hughes and Irving's relationship. I'm not well versed in what went on there, Welles mostly catches us up but he takes his time doing so, making some of the movie a bit of a struggle. Welles is charming enough to keep us going though, unless you happen to think of him as an unwatchable, pretentious douche later on in life... in which case, this movie might be a bit of struggle. He is ALL OVER THIS MOVIE. Like a plate of french fries. I don't hold that opinion, so I say: A great doc!

Orson is freaking ooouuuutttt!

Champion - 2005 - Dir. Eckhardt

If a movie has Danny Trejo in it, I'll at least consider watching it no matter what the subject matter. So it didn't take much for me to throw this up on "Watch Instantly." A documentary about Danny Trejo! Excellent! Well... not so much, I suppose. I'd like to just hold the director responsible for the whole business. And that's NOT because I'm afraid Mr. Trejo will come after me. It's because Eckhardt seemed to have had a good idea and ruined it with distinctly amateurish BS. Cheap camera effects. And the choice of material used could have been a little bit better. At times, it felt groan-worthy. Trejo's life story is pretty incredible at times and actually pretty inspiring by the end. He got me a little pumped up, to be honest. I feel like we hover on the seedy stuff a little bit longer than necessary and breeze through his later life, which I feel like is somewhat of a shame. His redemption comes quickly and easily in the movie. As if making the decision to be good was all it took. I know it's nitpicking but I was really bothered by the presence of the interviewer in the doc. She always looked sort of awkward and their banter seemed uncomfortable. All in all, if you are really interested in Danny Trejo I suppose you could check it out... but it's not much of a documentary.

I'm gonna fuck your drug habit UP!

Inside Deep Throat - 2005 - Dir. Baily/Barbato

I was disappointed with Inside Deep Throat. I don't mean to suggest that the release of Deep Throat should make a thrilling full length documentary by any means, but I suppose I would have expected it to be a little more interesting. They linger a great deal on the production of the film, which was really just produced like most other pornos at the time. There's little of interest there, no matter how loud the old men who were interviewed are. If anything, the backgrounds of those involved is about the most interesting thing to arise out of the "set-up" sequence. Especially Linda Lovelace and the Director. The documentary gets a little more compelling when the film is released but even then, I found it dragging. It just doesn't feel like this documentary should have crossed the hour mark. Perhaps the subject just isn't as interesting as it sounds. We spend the majority of the time listening to old men who were grips and other behind the scenes people rant somewhat incoherently. Despite it's best efforts, the documentary at times even makes the porno seem inconsequential, any recognizable cultural figures that show up do so briefly with little to say. Larry Flynt seemed to have only one thing to say and Gore Vidal has a bizarrely edited sequence and again falls to the wayside. There are few opposing voices, I can only remember one and he is pretty outrageously conservative (although I guess he would be), I suppose that is one of the more interesting moments and I could have gone for more of those types of interviews.

:(

An Unreasonable Man - 2006 - Mantel/Skrovan

Knew very little about Nader apart from he was a presidential candidate for the Greens and he looked like a grump. I WAS RIGHT ON BOTH PARTS. So, hey, as any full length documentary can be when its on a subject you know next to nothing about... it was pretty informative for me. I had only meant to watch a little bit but it really drew me in and sat me down. The movie almost seems to have the attitude of "Oh hey, I bet you didn't know what a great guy Ralph Nader is..." Which I suppose might be kind of reasonable. Even the part that kind of trashes Ralph for stealing votes from Gore makes the Democrats look like massive jackasses. So it does strike me as somewhat biased in that the arguments against Nader and what he's done seem relatively weak and underdeveloped. It doesn't really amount to much more than fickle emotional people and a small number of clearly bitter people. So you know, the movie really is about how important Nader has been, rather than a straight-forward bio. It suggests that Nader doesn't have much of a private life as is. Which is kinda badass, I guess, in a rebel type lawyer role. So yeah, it pulled me in!

Oh look, it's Ralph Nader, and he's ready to fuck you up now.

Casino Jack and the United States of Money - 2010 - Dir. Gibney

I don't know why, I guess I've been in a Gibney mood or something. His documentaries are a breeze to watch and generally pretty entertaining. Sometimes I'm bothered by because they seem somewhat morally simplified... or one-sided. I try and watch what I've seen of his work as positing rather than telling a historical story. At times, especially as the film progresses, this feels like Democratic pornography, the corruption of Republican figures and right wing jerkwads. I think that might be the part that feels like slowest, just because it doesn't take long before it just feels like watching douches be douchy repeatedly. The first third, the rise of Abramoff and the Conservatives in the 80's is the most interesting. I suppose because radical student organizations being conservative is a somewhat fascinating beast. A hulking mutant with a nice, collared shirt and fiscal responsibility. I'm generally used to... you know... Hippies. So the movie just shed some light on a culture I don't think I really heard very much about. Jack Abramoff also is much more interesting at that time. His rise, his time as a movie producer... and basically how he goes from working with Dolph Lundgren to helping produce sweatshops, is just absolutely nuts.

Ketchup w/Jack Abramoff

Gonzo: The Life and Work of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson - 2008 - Dir. Gibney

I simultaneously liked this and was disappointed by it. I dunno, I like Hunter S. Thompson a whole ton. Simply by being a documentary about him, it sort of had me won over. I've read a good chunk of his work. Which is where I think some of my disappointment came in. The title ends up being pretty literal... They really do pretty thoroughly go over Thompson's work. It felt maybe a little too thorough for me. There seemed like a few too many As soon as Hunter starts producing less, the movie hurries quickly to his death. So the film seems specifically less concerned with his life than his work. I enjoy having chuckles with Pat Buchanan about stuff I read about in Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail but I guess I kept finding myself looking for more. It's a simple chronology with others making comments along the way. Anyone looking for a biography or something more character driven may be let down. But I think if you're looking to get into Hunter without all of that pesky reading, this just might hit the spot. It was on Watch Instant, which was it's saving grace for me. As something that was free and convenient it was great. If I had paid for it, I would have been way more disappointed than I already am. It just feels less like a feature documentary and little bit more like a TV Special on HBO or whatever.

STEADMAN!

Waco: The Rules of Engagement - 1997 - Dir. Gazecki

I was about seven when this whole Waco business went down and I can say I knew only generally of what went on up until recently. I watched this pretty randomly in an attempt to inform myself on the whole business. I picked it because it was on Watch Instantly, but I lucked out because apparently this is the more trusted of the spate of docs to come out on the subject. They seem to try to be pretty unbiased (everyone has their chance to look like a nutjob/douchebag), but they clearly do believe and want us to believe to some degree there was a cover-up. To be fair, it really does seem like the FBI and the ATF were total fucktards and probably did all kind of terrible shit and then tried to cover it up. The movie doesn't make Koresh into a martyr by any means. He also seems to be a fucktard of a lesser degree. He didn't gas and burn children alive or anything... Just... possibly/probably... molested them... so he's a still a pretty awful guy. So yeah, I'm kind of worked up about the whole thing because of this movie. Especially since I didn't know the details of how it ended. I was pretty shocked and horrified to a degree that I don't think a documentary had me feeling in a long time. It's pretty slow at first. For a chunk of time it's just clips of politicians being political (Biden and Chuck Schumer look like dick weasels!), but it ends up feeling like a key ingredient to this big shitty soup that happened in Waco. It's a pretty informative movie. Feels fact based and uses mostly footage and clips to tell the story. It's a wild ride.

Heard any good jokes recently?