Top 100 Club: Bondo

[Sandy]

Playing catchup too.


They Shoot Horses, Don't They?



[Spoilery]

Sandy: Are you ready to jump into the They Shoot Horses discussion? I haven't read any of the reviews or discussions yet, because I wanted to watch it first.

KOL: I am pretty much where you are. It got quite a bit of discussion recently, however. For the most part of the movie I did not quite get why. Is it a common expression, ”They shoot horses, don't they?” Or, was it just a line in the script?

Sandy: It's from the beginning of the movie, when the boy's dad shoots the horse that broke his leg. Shooting a lame horse, "Puts it out of it's misery." That is the reason he shot the girl at the end. She was in abject misery.

KOL: Now you spoiled the movie. So it only is in the context of the movie? it is not a very good, or rather pleasant, title.

Sandy: Oh! You were just wondering if it was a common saying. You didn't need a play by play! Before the movie, it wasn't a common saying, but the concept of putting a horse out of its misery was.

KOL: To me, it made little sense until that scene by the sea shore.

Sandy: Even though it shows small bits and pieces throughout the film to prepare us for that moment, it is still a punch in the gut.

KOL: I never was shure if the court scenes were flashbacks or flash forwards. I’d like to see those scenes again, with the full knowledge of what they are.

Sandy: I wasn't sure for a little while, but then I realized he was wearing his sponsor's sweatshirt.

KOL: Detective eyes!

Sandy: Haha! I was frustrated that I didn't know, so set out on a fact finding mission!

KOL: Cool. With that in mind, do you think that those scenes were revealing?

Sandy: I always wonder if flash forwards, or flash backs are ultimately the right choice in a movie and wonder what the film would have been like without them. I may have had a meltdown without the foreknowledge. It was devastating, those last few scenes... When they found out there months long ordeal was for nothing. The flashbacks may have preserved me from that a bit.
 
KOL: That was a big topic when people discussed Lost, if i remember it correctly

Sandy: I only saw a few episodes of Lost. What was the consensus?

KOL: Flashbacks can be constructive, flash forwards less so, but I guess there is a place for them as well. i never saw Lost. I think that some of the flash forwards were confusing, but what do I know?

Sandy: In general, it is a creative choice and I respect that. Narration doesn't have to be linear. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Yes! flash forwards are confusing! They trip you up, because they usually go backwards. Have you seen Arrival?

KOL: Pretty much so. Yes I saw Arrival.

Sandy: Spoiler alert, but that was a flash forward disguised as a flashback! very tricky!

KOL: We cant go on more yet. I need to address you meltdown observation before we digress.

Sandy: Ah, yes that. Sometimes a movie is too too much. It takes me a while to recover. Giving me a heads up, let's me prepare myself a little. Now we can move on.

KOL: I guess the film is a different take on The Depression. It is an intelligent film in that the pay off comes very late in the movie, but what precedes the pay off is a too slow build-up. It may be smart and intelligent and all that...

Sandy: We are there with them through it all. It feels interminable for them.

KOL: We are with them, sure, but it never feels like that large amount of time after all. They danced (or moved, rather) for over 50 days, right?

Sandy: Yes. I can't imagine.

KOL: Me neither. Seen from an distance it is very exploitive.

Sandy: I wonder what kind of person would make up such a cruel form of entertainment.

KOL: Mr. Green... He dwells everywhere. You must be a very desperate person to opt in for such an event. Did you feel these people were that desperate?

Sandy: Some were there, just because they were hungry. Getting fed routinely was enough for them to subject themselves. Hunger is a great motivator.

KOL: One of the most fundamental, sure.

Sandy: The money too. It was a way out of their situation.

KOL: Yes. dance is supposed to be a happy and joyful thing. it is a smart thing to let such an event frame. i think it worked in a good way, but it left me a bit puzzled for the most part of the movie. in that way i must say it worked admirably.

Sandy: Well said. I can see why its reputation has lasted. It's a unique take and a tricky concept to pull off.

KOL: Personally, it worked less well for me. I never got emotionally invested. it was like looking at animals in a zoo (not that the people were animals!).

Sandy: They were treated as such.

KOL: Yes, and i felt alienated in a similar way.

Sandy: So maybe it accomplished what it set out to do, in a way. The contestants were dehumanized.

KOL: I very much think it did. In a frightful way you could say it translates today. What if the dance event corresponds to an election?

Sandy: It's a good comparison. They both pit one against another. Dehumanizing the other.

KOL: Are we the people the dancers, or is it the candidates that dance? I guess it all depends on your perspective. I should try to think of a top 5 exploitive movies. This would at least get a honorable mention.

Sandy: I'd be interested in seeing that list.

KOL: Me too! i have not thought of it until now and i have no idea what movies would chart.

Sandy: I see the president as the master of ceremonies, calling the shots, manipulating his constituents and his workers alike, using empty promises to keep them in line.

KOL: Was he just an employee or was he the organizer? I mean, he also had to be there for nearly two months

Sandy: Yes, the master of ceremonies was an employee, but he was in on it. He knew he was swindling the dancers. But it's the depression, so he may have felt fortunate to have the job and then rationalized his choice to be a part of it. But what a crappy job. The never endingness of it.

KOL: Which reminds me! hang on....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T08NtkokeQ&feature=youtu.be

Sandy: Haha! Did you listen to a lot of disco back in the day?

KOL: I surely did not. I hated disco then, but i can appreciate it a little now as a part of the cultural heritage.

Sandy: I remember it was saturated on the airwaves, like it needed to be shelved.

KOL: We watch movies from all genres. I do anyway, so it should be the same with music, I think.

Sandy: For sure

KOL: Some speak more easily to me, but they all have their worth, give or take.

Sandy: it's a snapshot of a time and place.

KOL: Yes. we always laughed at the yowsah thing, but now i know from where it originates! thank you Bondo!

Sandy: So it's a piece of history, even if I don't want to listen much.

KOL: You don't appreciate Chic?!

Sandy: Haha! I do! In small amounts.

KOL: The producers Nile Rodgers and Bernard Edwards were awesome. Edwards died, but Rodgers plays on. He was featured on that great Daft Punk album with the helmets on the cover.

Sandy: Wow, your knowledge runs deep, crossing genres!

KOL: hihi. He also played on David Bowie's Let's Dance album. I think the music talk is a nice coda to the review.

Sandy: Agreed! And on that note...

[Bondo]

I guess I'm not sure if I'd say "They Shoot Horses Don't They" is a common saying in the sense that one is likely to use it in common speech, even though Millennials are all about jokes about wishing for death. So it is less about knowing the phrase as knowing the reference...the fact that it is common practice to put a lame horse down.

Sandy, it was interesting to hear your take on the flash forward and how it made the ending a bit more bearable. I know 1SO certainly and me to some degree thought some of that stuff was the only real weak point. I do think the "is this before or after" question is an interesting one to the degree that it is left open because you could think this is what leads to him being desperate or the outcome of the event, either way it looks bad.

I actually watched a festival film last month that engages in a modern telling involving a contest where people stand around a pick-up truck and last one keeping a hand on it wins it. I think these are real contests in a variety of places...at a minimum a British game show. Our ability to push people into desperation where they can be exploited is certainly alive and well. Though it's always a fine line. Like, there's a whole thing about Uber/Lyft drivers in California and whether to consider them employees as opposed to contract workers, which affects certain pay/labor protections. Based on my knowledge of the employee/independent contractor distinction, I'd be inclined to say they are independent contractors...and further a pure market reading would say that it must be worth it to drive under current conditions or they wouldn't do it, so who am I to say it isn't good enough. And you can make that argument about these contests...ignore economic contexts and just see it as an expression of free will. No one is making them do it and they can leave so they must want to be there...but of course, their ability to say no is constrained if the alternative is starvation.

[Sandy]

Reading that, I think of the word tenacity. Misguided or not, the level of dedication to these contests is astounding. I wonder what it would take for me to hold on for that long. Safety of someone else, or myself is the only thing that comes to mind.

[smirnoff]

Dear Zachary

There's shockingly little information out there about Justice Gale Welsh; the judge who allowed Shirley Turner out on bail which resulted in Turner committing a murder/suicide. Justice Welsh is still an active judge on the Court of Appeals in Newfoundland, and still making rulings to this day. In the context of the documentary her ruling and comments seem absurd, and since the time of the documentary the law has been changed precisely because of this events documented here. I was surprised to see that this Judge was still living and working in the same community in which this happened. The events themselves, and the documentary, caused so much uproar, I would have just assumed that she quietly stepped down and moved away. To this day you can find people raging and posting her professional contact information, and expressing that they've sent nasty emails. I can only imagine the sort of hate she's received over her decision.

Her ruling seemed strange. Outrageous really. Hard to explain. Trying to be fair-minded and not get caught up in the emotion of the story, I wondered if it was a case of a judge being hamstrung by bad law... after all, the law was changed because of this documentary. If you go to dearzachary.com, the official website for the film, you can find a link to the official investigation which was commissioned by the Child & Youth Advocate's office of Newfoundland and Labrador. What it details is, imo, pretty damning. Not of Judge Welsh, but actually of the Crown Prosecutors who seemingly did no investigation of Turner in the 13 month period between between her first and second bail hearing. At the second hearing they opposed her release but advanced NO evidence to support their opposition. Meanwhile the person writing the investigation within a week of beginning had learned about Turner's previous prison time, her suicide attempts, her past violence, and the circumstances of the murder investigation in the US, and the long list of psychiatrists that she'd visited. It looks really bad when you read it. Turner was an unrepresented defendant at the second bail hearing (because nobody would represent her, or she failed to get representation through the provided means)... was the prosecution simply phoning it in, assuming that they could coast through the hearing and the judge would be fully informed of the case? It really feels that way. Justice Welsh has received a lot of flack and I find myself questioning if it is at all justified. It's not hard to believe there's a bad judge out there (there are obviously lots). But who the heck were these crown prosecutors who whiffed so badly? Also, they never appealed the decision, when there was grounds to do so.

It's beyond the scope the documentary, given it's purpose and the time at which is was made, to touch on this. But I find that it does now bother me. The doc flatly lays blame at the judges feet... I would love to know if anyone during all these court proceedings ever questioned the competency of the prosecution. Do the Bagby's feel like they were let down on that front as well? It makes me wonder if the revised law actually fixed anything or if it was a symbolic thing (an easy political win for everyone involved). So I looked up the text of the bill. It doesn't exactly seem to address the problems that occurred according to investigation. Also, the language of the law doesn't seem to be all that different.

The law previously:

(b) where the detention is necessary for the protection or safety of the public, including any victim of or witness to the offence, having regard to all the circumstances including any substantial likelihood that the accused will, if released from custody, commit a criminal offence or interfere with the administration of justice; and

The law after (with the changes in bold):

(b) where the detention is necessary for the protection or safety of the public, including any victim of or witness to the offence, or any person under the age of 18 years, having regard to all the circumstances including any substantial likelihood that the accused will, if released from custody, commit a criminal offence or interfere with the administration of justice; and

I'm not a lawyer by any stretch, but the addition of "any person under the age of 18 years" change the law in any meaningful way? Safety of the public is already a pretty inclusive phrase it seems to me. The amended law feels like a gesture, and not something that would have made any difference in Zachary's case (or any case). I tried searching for cases in which the bill was cited and had some impact but I didn't come up with anything. I don't really know where or how to effectively find that sort of thing though. Again, not a lawyer.

According to the 15 minute follow up documentary this bill change was a compromise, which was settled on after Canadian senators wouldn't support a law which would prevent anyone accused of first-degree murder from getting bail before trail, saying it was too restrictive to a judges discretion.

I find it all a bit of a sad result.


This is actually my second time watching this doc, and it's just as powerful and sad as it ever was. Andrew seemed like a wonderful person. His parents were unbelievable. What they endured, and how it ended up. Unbelievable. Great documentary.

[Bondo]

smirnoff, thanks for doing the reading outside the context of the film, which is really my only frame of reference. I agree that the change in law seems unlikely to have made a difference. It's been long enough since my second viewing to remember, but was the issue actually that she was granted bail or was it that she retained partial custody of the child? Like, it seems there is the middle ground of allow bail (which is a reasonable presumption) but prohibit her from unsupervised visitation during the pendency of the matter.

I don't know enough about the Canadian (or provincial) judiciary to know whether like our federal courts positions have life tenure and that explains the continued presence of someone who seems unpopular, even if one can argue that the problem was that she was working off flawed information. It generally isn't the Judge's job to independently verify all the information in a adversarial system, rather evaluating the information presented by the two sides for credibility. When one side is negligent or lazy, that's more on them than the judge. I'll have to go back and see how I directed my outrage in the reviews.

[smirnoff]

smirnoff, thanks for doing the reading outside the context of the film, which is really my only frame of reference. I agree that the change in law seems unlikely to have made a difference. It's been long enough since my second viewing to remember, but was the issue actually that she was granted bail or was it that she retained partial custody of the child? Like, it seems there is the middle ground of allow bail (which is a reasonable presumption) but prohibit her from unsupervised visitation during the pendency of the matter.

The judge granting bail seems to me to be the primary legal issue the doc focuses on. The custody arrangement is addressed also, as a general wtf, but is focused more on how Andrew's parents have to cope with it, and not its legal merits. Really most of the legal questions are handled quite quickly, as the doc is more chronicling the timeline at that point than morphing into some sort of investigative piece. The stuff about the courts zoomed by during montages, and the gets back to documenting the impact on the family and friends.

There is a bit in the film (or the follow up doc) where we see the director trying to make calls to get interviews with judges, or involved parties, but his nature is too kindl to press them, and he takes no for an answer. So it doesn't really go anywhere.

I don't know enough about the Canadian (or provincial) judiciary to know whether like our federal courts positions have life tenure and that explains the continued presence of someone who seems unpopular, even if one can argue that the problem was that she was working off flawed information. It generally isn't the Judge's job to independently verify all the information in a adversarial system, rather evaluating the information presented by the two sides for credibility. When one side is negligent or lazy, that's more on them than the judge. I'll have to go back and see how I directed my outrage in the reviews.

AFAIK Federal appointments are until the age 70 or 75 depending on the particular province. This would apply to Judge Welsh I believe.

[Bondo]

Only a couple days late kicking this off but what even is time.

I have a fresh new Top 100 (with a few honorable mentions) for you this time around. If you need or want more possible options, I have my top films by decade lists also available through Letterboxd.

My lists are still the same as last year.

As previously discussed with ET, Skallamann (a short available on YouTube) and We Are The Best! are his priorities.

For others, if you haven’t seen Shiva Baby, that is the current year film I’m hyping.

[jdc]

I have access to They Shoot Horses as well as Clouds of Sils Marie… so better than most months….will plan to do those two

[1SO]

A Personal Journey with Bondo Through Cinema:
The Private Life of a Cat (1946)
Rattle of a Simple Man (1964)
’Gator Bait (1974)
Gideon’s Trumpet (1980)
The House of the Yellow Carpet (1983)
Supermarket Woman (1996)
Speak (2004)
Caramel (2007)
How I Ended This Summer (2010)
Dark River (2017)
Detention (2019)
Becky (2020)
Bad Hair (2020)


Spaced out correctly, this should lead nicely into Shocktober where those last three are on my Watchlist.

[MartinTeller]

Gonna do some Weber, either Hypocrites or Where Are My Children. Maybe both.