The Agony and Ecstasy of Phil Spector (2008) Vikram Jayanti

Phil Spector is quite a character.  He's a weird and miscomprehended genius of music, nothing more interesting than that.  But this is a clear example that sometimes, a great character is not enough for a documentary to be good.



The documentary is too long and repetitive.  It's funny how Phil Spector mentions that Psycho is only good as it is an edit-movie, when this film isn't good due to lack of editing.  Vikram Jayanti should've edited at least half of it.  It would've been a great short-film.  I'm not sure if he insisted in making it this long in order to have enough time to play most of Spector's songs, from start to end, but he clearly didn't have enough material to keep it going for a 102 minutes.  There's a point where you actually get bored and have simply had enough of this sort of E True Hollywood Story he's presenting.  Unfortunately you can't simply change the channel.

Catfish (2010) Ariel Schulman & Henry Joost

This is a fascinating documentary and definitely a must-see.  It's a deep, controversial analysis on  human, computer-based, relationships and their complexity.  The truth is, I'm not very familiar with this trend of getting to know people through the internet, but I have a couple of friends who have done it and have enjoyed the experience.  Still, I think you take away the magic of the first encounter, of the first exchange of looks and smiles, of being able to decipher his/her corporal language.  Despite what I think, this way of getting to know people is getting more and more popular every day, so I think it's of great interest and importance that young directors now-a-days, explore this topic and its possibilities.



It begins in a very casual/funny mood.  You get to know Yaniv, who happens to be a great character to whom you can immediately identify, and therefore empathize with.  This makes you want to listen to, what appears to be, just another trivial love story, despite how cliche it may first seem.

The first twenty minutes, I thought this documentary was about to sell us what a great idea meeting people through the internet is.  But then, the twist takes place.  "Abby's such a psychopath" Yaniv says when he finds out she's been cynically lying to his face (computer).  And the movie begins to get really interesting.  Generally, most people in that situation would've simply ended the relationship right there.  They would've just said something like "there's too many weir people in the internet..." and would've probably given it a rest for a while.  But they decide to dig deeper and get to the bottom of it.

First they do research on how much of it is a lie. Then, they visit and confront her. "Why?" they ask her, and as she tries to answer, you get to know her... she's no psychopath, truth is, she's no worse than any of us, she's just a lonely-frustrated gal that has all these issues that don't let her reach out to people.  Evidently she has a huge problem coping with reality and telling the truth, and she clearly needs to get some help, but she's not a bad person.  She's didn't play with Yaniv's feelings just for the fun of it... and they're right, the whole situation is sad and nothing more... and i think that's why Yaniv doesn't get mad at her.  How can you get mad at somebody who's incapable of loving?  I don't think you can, and if you do manage to get mad, then I don't think you actually understand what that means, being "incapable of loving"...

There's a lot to ponder on.  Isn't every relationship based on an Abby(ideal)-Angela(reality) structure? Don't we all, at some level, believe the other one wants us to be Abby? and haven't we all felt the frustration of uncovering the Angela beneath?  Do we ever truly relate on a Angela-Angela level?  Is it even possible?  And isn't there a little of Abby in all of us?  Or is it the other way around? A little of ourselves in Abby? ...just like there was a little of Angela in Abby...

The Black Power Mixtape 1967-1975 (2010) Goran Olsson

This film is filled with beautiful and unique archival images of the "Black Power" movement that took place in the US from 1967 to 1975.  To my generation, it is a must-see.  I say to my generation, because we didn't get to watch television when the movement was taking place, we were born long after the deaths of most of them, so this is a great opportunity to familiarize ourselves with all that imagery.



The thing is, the film has a televised format that puts you in this numb-state of mind, very similar to when you're actually watching t.v.  At least, that's what happened to me, and I find it only natural since they were actually taped for Swiss television.  But if you're able to fight the numbness, then you'll be able to appreciate how interesting, everything the documentary shows, actually is.

I think it is a little too long, specially due to the density of the images and statements that conform the documentary.  But if you're used to watching the news for long periods of time then you'll find it to be an extraordinary work.

Cool It (2010) Ondi Timoner

This documentary has a very noticeable Michael Moore style, nevertheless I find it to be of huge interest to society.  In a way, you can say that it is a counterattack to Alan Gore's documentary, The Inconvenient Truth.  So "truth" is probable in between...well... maybe not THAT in between.

 

What I liked most about this film was all that data-analyzing.  All the fact Bjorn Lomborg throws in, make a lot of sense, they are believable and congruent.  The idea of reorganizing priorities is completely logical.  I agree with him, we should spend all that money, that is going to waste by unsuccessfully trying to fix global warming, in eliminating hunger, diseases, poverty...  Of course, as he states it, there are too many influential people interested in things remaining as they are, so change won't come that easily.  I think the main difference between Al Gore's and Ondi Timoner's documentaries is that the second one offers good, viable solutions, while the first one focuses only on you panicking.

There are also some things that I didn't like about the filme because they were too manipulative, like all the scenes were Bjorn Lomborg is hanging out with his sick mom.  I mean could it be more obvious that the director is appealing to our compassionate, human side, so that we start liking Bjorn and that way we find it easier to believe in what he's saying.  The same goes to the scenes where's he's feeding African kids.. they should have been left out, because ultimately what sustains the documentary is all those Nobel Prized scientists that support Bjorn Lomborgs ideas, not if we think he's a good son or even a good human being.

Steam of Life (2010) Joonas Berghäll

I think the title alone lets you know this is a very spiritual documentary.  It opens with a couple of middle-aged people, completely naked, just enjoying the steam of the sauna and enjoying their own bodies.  I found it to be a beautiful opening sequence, specially since they feel so comfortable lying there, despite the camera filming them... and it got me thinking, we've grown so afraid of being naked, both physically and emotionally, that we've been missing out on simply enjoying our own bodies, our own feelings.

 

In general, I really liked this work.  Some of the men who tell their stories move you in so many different levels it's hard to get out the theater the same... these are people who are are completely broken, who feel defeated by life, who were too afraid and are now too alone..  "I wish she came, I've always cried alone, maybe this time we could cry together..." says one of them referring to his child. And yet, they're "us" in a very specific point of life, maybe even in the present time.

There were some scenes that I didn't like, because they felt forced, and strangely enough, overacted... I would've edited them, also the ending, which I think is cheesy and corny and completely unnecessary.  But other than that, I think it's a great documentary, a beautiful portrait of life as it is lived.

No Distance Left to Run (2010) Will Lovelace and Dylan Southern

A documentary on Blur...  let's be honest, doing a documentary on a band like Blur, getting back together is a great idea, and there's almost no way of it not working, because your subject is great on itself.  If you actually manage to do something that doesn't work, you can still count on the documentary being a hit within the band's fans, so there's almost no way of getting it wrong.



The truth is, I'm not quite sure how you're supposed to approach this kind of movies.  The only thing I can surely say is that I really enjoyed this work.  I loved the way the band members opened to the directors and were not afraid to show their deeper selves in front of the camera.

I liked the structure given to it, how it begins with images of the band reuniting at the studio and the voice in off of Graham confessing how much he had missed Damon, and how little he had been able to acknowledge it on the past few years.  Of course, on that moment I wasn't able to recognize who was talking and about who, since names are left unspoken, but I was able to connect with that feeling of nostalgia for a lost friend, for a past life.   I think that voice in off sets the mood in which the rest of the documentary will unfold itself, because more than simply talking about a huge British band, it talks about friendship and life and how sometimes things don't work, about the complexity of relationships and the way people decide to go through different paths.

Looking at them reminiscence in front the camera, cutting to scenes from when they were young and on top of the world, and then watching them perform in present time.  Evidently that type of structure is going to give a nostalgic/idyllic atmosphere to the whole documentary, and it is going to connect to our past on that same way, so the effect can only strengthen itself, since we are no longer missing Blur, but in fact we are missing the times when we used to sing Blur's songs, with all that that represents: a specific moment in time, in our lives, in our youth... when we, as well, felt on top of the world.


It's a great music documentary because it connects with you and it moves you and you get out of the theater wishing you had been more involved with their music,  wishing you could feel part of the portrayed experience.  It makes you want to grasp to that piece of time and just linger... just forget about right now and live in the memory of the past.

The Furious Force of Rhymes (2010) Joshua Atesh Litle

I've never been a huge fan of hip-hop, but I don't think this movie was made exclusively for hip-hop fans.  I think that hip-hop fans will definitely enjoy the documentary in a more profound level, but I also think that not knowing anything about this musical genre has its upside.



The film has a geographical narrative.  It begins in New York City, then moves to France, Germany, Middle East, and ends in Africa.  I really liked that structure because you get to compare different types of hip-hop, all influenced by their own musical traditions.  I found that comparison to be very rich, not only at a musical level, but also at a cultural level.  It's impressive the way hip-hop can be, depending on the lyrics, nothing but a sack of negative expressions or the bright light at the end of the tunnel.  The same situations and problems, as corny as it may sound, are looked at in a half-empty glass, or in a half-full glass way, which is only human, since facts are not good or bad, but only facts (which every creature but humans understand) and the way we are able to cope, or not, with them, is what makes us think of them as good or bad.

I also liked that you get to see musicians in their daily life, talking about their lives and their worries, thinking they are common people.  Then, you get to watch them perform, singing at the studio or in a videoclip.  So you connect to them, not only on a musical level, but also on a more human level.  You start caring and believing their messages should be heard, no matter what the content is.

The way it ends, with all the musicians linked by the same hip-hop bit, all contributing to the same song... I found it slightly corny, but also very moving.  It's like they say during the documentary, in the end, it doesn't matter in what language you're singing, hip-hop music has the strength to unite, because in the end it's all about the music.

El FIeld (2010) Daniel Rosas

Yesterday I went to Ambulante Film Festival to watch a mexican contemporary documentary.  A friend from Mexicali knew the director and the producer and proposed we all went to watch it.  It's hard enough to write what you though about a movie, without it being from a guy you know, but with that added, it's almost impossible to be completely honest.

 

I thought the movie had great visual content, but the sound design seemed overlooked and the music did terrible harm to the film.  A good friend of mine said it reminded him of Our Daily Bread, and when he made this question to Daniel Rosas, he said he had watched it after he had finished the movie and had also found the similarities.  I haven't watched Our Daily Bread, so I can't comment on that comparison.  What I can say is that I didn't understand why the synopsis says the movie is about illegal Mexican people who work on the field, when I though it was more about a different approach to the field.   Just like the title says it, I think the documentary gives us the opportunity to appreciate the field in a way we never could have expected to appreciate it.

This documentary is by nature contemplative and descriptive, more than narrative.  I think that the part that I didn't like about it was just that, the director not being brave enough to just let it be that way.  I think he should have edited all those images and "conversations" that give into narrative statements, because they feel forced and out of place.  If he had done that, maybe it would've reminded us more of Koyaanisqatsi, but I think it would have had a lot more strength.

El Santo Oficio (1974) Arturo Ripstein

Last week I went to watch El Santo Oficio (The Holy Office) in 35mm.  Circo 2.12 is doing a small retrospective on Ripstein's work all Wednesdays at Centro Cultural Universitario Tlatelolco,  so I thought it was a good opportunity to re-watch some of his films and get to know the ones I hadn't seen.  The truth is, I'm a big fan of Ripstein, and all of his movies I've watched (which are not that many), are either good or excellent... all but this one.



I really don't know how the critics and the audience responded to this film when it was first released.  Somebody told me it won a couple of Arieles.  I think it should have been a let down, though.  But even it wasn't, it is clear to me that it didn't transcend time, since now-a-days most of the young people, haven't heard about the movie at all.

The first fifteen minutes are very interesting.  The son betraying his whole family in exchange for a place in heaven is beautifully sordid.  But then Ripstein decides to focus on making a larger scale criticism on the Catholic church.  He distances the audience from the characters in order to let us see the bigger picture.  But the truth is watching a fiction which central theme is Catholics vs Jews is awfully boring,  Ripstein forgot the human aspect, the contradictions, the sordidness, that often characterize his work.  In my opinion, he should've focused on the brother that sold his family to the inquisition, not on the brother that thinks  Judaism is the one and only true religion. 

Anyway, more than just that, I think the movie isn't good because you never empathize with the character, it's too slow and the rhythm is completely off most of the time, the acting isn't that good, and there aren't any cool camera movements.

Loves of a Blonde (1965) Milos Forman

I'm a big fan of Czech cinematography.  I find it to be genuinely simple and tenderly sincere.  This movie is very sweet and moving, but I'm not sure it's actually a movie, I thought of it more as the beginning of a movie. 

 

Milos Forman doesn't rush things.  He takes his time to let, the world he's creating, fully develop.  He filmed a detailed introduction of the characters and took more than half of the movie to finally define the conflict, which I think, was a wise decision since it allows you to truly get involved and empathize with the characters.

What I didn't understand is why he decided to end it so fast.  The truth is I was really enjoying the way the story was coming to life, and I wanted to see more of the romance between Andula and Milda, I was craving for more conflict or maybe just for Milda to smile again.  I was loving the way things were going and when I saw "the end" I felt very frustrated.  Maybe Milos Forman ran out of money, or maybe he really thought that was all there was to the story, but I find to be a shame since it was only beginning to go somewhere.

Black Swan (2010) Darren Aronofsky

Last Sunday I went to watch Black Swan.  I had great expectations, since almost everybody that had seen it, had told me it was by far the best movie of the year.  I've watched almost all of Aronofsky's films and consider myself to be a huge fan of his work.  The truth is, high expectations are the worst curse on a movie you're about to see... almost unequivocally they'll be left unfilled.



Black Swan is a great movie.  It has the best Natalie Portman's performance ever.  She's just mind-blowing, and honestly I'm not sure the movie would sustain itself without her.  There's not enough words to describe how unbelievably good her acting is, and I think everybody will agree with me on that one. 

The cinematography is beautiful.  The choreography between the camera and the ballet dancers is simply perfect, it's smooth and tender but powerful and dynamic... it has the best balance.  The 16mm film was a great idea, with all that grainy texture and high contrasting images, the movie gets the right atmosphere.

I had a problem with the sound design.  I think the film uses too much music.  I know the idea is to reinforce the metaphor of the ballet "The Swan Lake" coming to life through Nina's schizophrenic mind, but I think my whole problem with the movie was just that, Aronosfosky being afraid of the metaphor not being comprehensible... I think his mistake was to underestimate the audience ability to grasp metaphors and hidden meanings.  The same goes to the sequence of the last dance, with the black feathers in Nina's arms and the red eyes... that was too much for my taste, I found it to be too obvious.

The other thing I didn't like about the movie, aside from Mila Kunis and Barbara Hershey's acting, was the representation of the black swan coming to life... the drugs, the promiscuous sex, the lesbian experience, the rebellious attitude towards her mom, the seducing of the teacher... I think they're all cliches of teenagers going wrong.  Aronofsky has enough talent and could have easily escaped the trite stereotypes and give the evil in the black swan the transcendence it deserves. Maybe if he had dared to explore a little further the self-mutilation instinct in Nina... but that's just a thought.

In conclusion I think it's a great movie, and people should definitely watch it and learn from it.  But I don't think it's Aronofsky's best work, I still think Requiem for a Dream and Pi are way better.  So go watch it, just don't go with extremely high expectations and you'll definitely enjoy it.