Author Topic: Feb MDC write-ups: Documentary  (Read 23143 times)

jbissell

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 10892
  • What's up, hot dog?
Re: Feb MDC write-ups: Documentary
« Reply #50 on: February 24, 2009, 11:19:03 PM »


Titicut Follies 8.5/10

I watched this a week ago and I've been struggling to write down some thoughts about it.  This is my first Wiseman experience.  It takes a lot to shock/disturb me but this might just be the most uncomfortable I've felt watching any film.  I've read a decent amount about the treatment of psych patients in the 50s and 60s so I wasn't exactly surprised about what happens, but it definitely hit me on a much more visceral level than just words on the page.  There's just something profoundly disturbing about seeing a stark naked man stomp around a room in a circle, being treated not much better than an animal, constantly being badgered by the guards.  There are quite a few rants, some of them are fascinating and make little sense but I was completely drawn in by the rhythms.  Others are so incoherent that it became frustrating.  The scene that has stuck with me the most is the scene towards the end of the film where one of the patients pleads his case for release.  It is clear that it is a fight he will never win, with the only solution (in the minds of the doctors) being an increase in medication.  One element that really surprised me is the key role music plays, most notable in a performance that bookends the film.  There are many shots of the patients and wardens singing and playing music, and some of the rants have a strangely musical quality.  All said, I respect this film and think everyone should experience it (and it really is an experience), but I'm in no hurry to revisit it (I do plan on tackling more Wiseman though, High School is next on my list).


worm@work

  • Godfather
  • ******
  • Posts: 7472
Re: Feb MDC write-ups: Documentary
« Reply #51 on: February 24, 2009, 11:23:51 PM »
Hmmm, sounds disturbing but I have to watch it, especially given how much I liked High School.

mañana

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 20868
  • Check your public library
Re: Feb MDC write-ups: Documentary
« Reply #52 on: February 26, 2009, 04:02:06 AM »
Los Angeles Plays Itself

treats anything short of reality as a great injustice. He makes generalizations that are often contradicted, and assumptions that are unfair and unlikely. And while I realize the scope of the movie does not really extend beyond LA, many of the points he brings up are true of filmmaking in general and not just applicable to one city, but you wouldn't know it from the way he tells it.

Those are all valid criticisms and I think most of them occurred to me as well. But like you, I really enjoyed the film, in fact I'd say it's pretty darn awesome. 
There's no deceit in the cauliflower.

edgar00

  • 00 Agent
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *
  • Posts: 12131
  • corndogs are better than Die Another Day
    • Between The Seats
Re: Feb MDC write-ups: Documentary
« Reply #53 on: February 26, 2009, 11:54:02 AM »



Your review echoed my thoughts towards the film closely. It's one of those movies where you know you won't get much out of it, but there is this sense that it might be worth watching purely for the entertainment value. I'm relieved it served at least that purpose for you.
-Le Chiffre: You changed your shirt, Mr Bond. I hope our little game isn't causing you to perspire.

-James Bond: A little. But I won't consider myself to be in trouble until I start weeping blood.

https://twitter.com/Betweentheseats
http://crabkeyheadquarters.wordpress.com/

edgar00

  • 00 Agent
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *
  • Posts: 12131
  • corndogs are better than Die Another Day
    • Between The Seats
Re: Feb MDC write-ups: Documentary
« Reply #54 on: February 26, 2009, 06:34:57 PM »


When We Were Kings (1996, Leon Gats)


Of all my weaknesses when writing about cinema on these boards, my greatest is undoubtedly my lack of experience and ability to analyze documentaries. Part of the reason is that I watch far too few. Another explanation is that I find it far more easy to criticize a piece of fiction, someone’s writing and direction of a made up story. There is a wall of separation, no matter how powerful the product, between myself and the story being told. With a documentary, I’m watching a director show me bits and pieces of reality. What he or she chooses to show and to hide and in what order he or she chooses to show these bits of reality make for interesting debate. Is it as objective as can be? Is there clearly an agenda at stake, etc? Yes, I can discuss those matters, but even when being beaten over the head with a commentary, I hesitate before crying: ‘Well that was a documentary and it was just plain bad.’ Was it? Does the intentional passage of a political agenda make that documentary ‘bad’ (Oxford: 1.Poor in quality; well below standard. 2.Unpleasant)?


challenger


Champion

Organizer
Host


It’s with great trepidation therefore that I write down these thoughts on the film ses was gracious enough to dictate to me this month, When We Were Kings. Being about as knowledgeable about boxing as I am about medicine (I was a political science major), I knew next to nothing about the ‘Rumble in the Jungle’ that so many Americans, and in particularly, boxing fans, remember fondly. I did of course know who Muhammad Ali is was somewhat aware of George Foreman (he’s the chap who cooks steaks, right?), but overall, my knowledge of the event was hazy at best. Having watched the film last night, I can say for sure that I understand it a lot more now: it’s significance within the boxing community, for many Congolese, for African Americans, Americans at large. It was, for the lack of a better term, a spectacle, a once in a lifetime kind of event.

When We Were Kings doesn't spend time on the life story of either heavyweight boxers involved. The strict necessary is shared. I can confidently say that, for those who know little about both titans, the movie still does a suitable job at showing the curious viewer how highly anticipated the matchup was. Ali, the Black Muslim American who refused to wage war in Vietnam, thus hated by mainstream Americans, and George Foreman, the Goliath, the champion, the destroyer, were to butt heads and fists in Africa, in an outdoor stadium, in front of perhaps a hundred thousand spectators (and so many more on international television). B.B. King and James Brown were invited to play some music in the festivities leading up to the mouth-watering confrontation. All this in the land of Mobutu Sese Soko, the leader of Zaire (as the Congo was known back in the 70s), a leader so ruthless and unsympathetic to democracy as well as many of his own people, it makes one pause before spitting yet another anti-Bush quip.


So happy the fight's coming to town their performing flips.


]Music to my ears.

Celebrations

As I was saying, the focal point of the film is the event and the preparation leading up to it. Much archival footage featuring interviews and press conferences attended by Ali himself are featured. What I found interesting was how director Gast didn’t merely leave the archival footage to itself. While that could have been effective in the sense that the viewer would be invited to conclude his or her own judgements regarding Ali, Gast has invited several journalists to comment on what they saw. Each has smart and sometimes colourful comments and memories to share (the ‘Are you still with that old man!?’ story had me laughing pretty hard). Ali was often, well let me correct that, always quite confident and quick witted when in front of the cameras. It was widely known that Foreman was an absolute monster in the ring. The size of his biceps (shown frequently throughout the film) were more than a little intimidating and the man’s technique was practically second to none. But Ali, never letting down his fans, remained cocky and witty during the months, weeks, days and minutes leading up to the fight. Some journalists praised his courage, while others believed that perhaps this was his way of hiding an underlying fear of his opponent. Who was right, who was wrong (personally I think Ali was too talented/insane to be afraid of anyone at all, but that’s just me) matters little in truth. It was this storytelling through various anecdotes and eye witness accounts that added a lot of charm to the film. I won’t divulge my full thoughts on the sport itself, but I won’t deny that I was... swept in the spectacle of it all. The people involved, the bizarre setting (not that it was done in Africa per say, but more that it was done in Mobutu’s land), etc. Every interviewee pitches in with comments about Ali, Foreman, Mobutu, the anticipation, the preparation, James Brown sweating on stage and then looking high as a kite during an interview, Spike Lee not hiding his pride (which never bothered me particularly, although I know he gets on some peoples nerves), Don King's tireless effort but devious nature,  the delay that occurred when Foreman was cut during a practice session, the context of the fight, and much more. The movie isn’t about boxing in general, but more about this one boxing match. It obviously meant very much to a lot of people and, their passion for the subject matter spilled over onto me as I listened and watched. Even their account of how the battle was won and lost was compelling and filled me in on some interesting boxing tid bits.


Spectacle


It begins

Artists at work

Through it all however, I felt a little bit sorry for the eventually loser of the match, George Foreman. Praise is given to both participants for their technical and physical prowess, but actual affection is provided to Muhammad Ali, the charmer, the joker. Virtually none is afforded to his opponent Foreman. Perhaps this was more due to both personalities involved. There is no question that both were supremely confident in their abilities to emerge victorious from battle, but while Ali displayed a certain flair and dare I say friendliness in his boasting, Foreman was the more introverted of the two. A mammoth of a man, he did, in essence, come away much more as the ‘villain’ between the two, if only because of his posture, tone and choice of words, which were few. So much ‘Ali boom-ba-yay!’ that there are no left over for the man who, from what I gather, turned out to be a pretty decent bloke in his later years. Oh well.

I think, since I wasn’t alive at the time, that the film captures the peoples feelings and the general mood leading up to the fight. The anticipation and festivities surrounding it were as titanic as both competitors involved. I certainly got that sense from the sounds and images in the film.


Unforgettable

A big mouth, but a bigger heart





Final thoughts:
Don't pay attention to the haters. Do what you do.



I’d like to finish by thanking ses very much for this dictation
.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2009, 08:06:55 PM by edgarchaput »
-Le Chiffre: You changed your shirt, Mr Bond. I hope our little game isn't causing you to perspire.

-James Bond: A little. But I won't consider myself to be in trouble until I start weeping blood.

https://twitter.com/Betweentheseats
http://crabkeyheadquarters.wordpress.com/

joem18b

  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4850
    • does writing excuse watching?
Re: Feb MDC write-ups: Documentary
« Reply #55 on: February 26, 2009, 07:42:07 PM »
most excellent!

Junior

  • Bert Macklin, FBI
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 28243
  • What's the rumpus?
    • Benefits of a Classical Education
Re: Feb MDC write-ups: Documentary
« Reply #56 on: February 26, 2009, 07:53:25 PM »


When We Were Kings (1996, Leon Gats)

All of what edgar wrote

I’d like to finish by thanking ses thatguy_sam very much for this dictation
.

Check out my blog of many topics

“I’m not a quitter, Kimmy! I watched Interstellar all the way to the end!”

edgar00

  • 00 Agent
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *
  • Posts: 12131
  • corndogs are better than Die Another Day
    • Between The Seats
Re: Feb MDC write-ups: Documentary
« Reply #57 on: February 26, 2009, 08:21:07 PM »
most excellent!

You're the master writer around these parts, so that means a lot.
-Le Chiffre: You changed your shirt, Mr Bond. I hope our little game isn't causing you to perspire.

-James Bond: A little. But I won't consider myself to be in trouble until I start weeping blood.

https://twitter.com/Betweentheseats
http://crabkeyheadquarters.wordpress.com/

ses

  • Administrator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 14955
    • Sarah's Kitchen Adventures
Re: Feb MDC write-ups: Documentary
« Reply #58 on: February 26, 2009, 08:54:14 PM »
Great write-up edgar!! :)
"It's a fool who looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart"

http://sarahskitchenadventures.blogspot.com/

'Noke

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 11799
Re: Feb MDC write-ups: Documentary
« Reply #59 on: February 28, 2009, 04:32:43 PM »
Grizzly Man


"I believe the common character of the universe is not harmony, but chaos, hostility, and murder." Werner Herzog.

             I don't watch a lot of documentaries. I've seen a couple, but none well known or very memorable(with the exception being last year's Man on Wire). I have just never been one of those people who really get into documentaries. So to see a movie like this is such a revelation for me, because I thought docs were just people telling a story to the camera, the strength of the doc being what they were saying. This is really a compilation of images, clips, and interviews, all trying to grasp at something.


           This movie could have gone a lot of ways with the Timothy Treadwell story. It could have explored Treadwell's fight against the government or people trying to kill the bears in the wilderness. He could explore just what Timothy did in the wilderness. But Herzog is doing something else, something much more interesting. He seems to be grasping for something, looking for the drive that Timothy Treadwell had in him to live among what Herzog thinks is a very destructive landscape. He is circling Timothy's character through Timothy's friends, his parents, people who thought he was nuts, his archival footage, and himself.
          Herzog doesn't let this become a talking head doc. He does make himself acknowledged by not placing the camera directly on a close-up of someone or by having it in the same place every time they speak. He also makes himself acknowledged in the conversation once or twice, but doesn't get involved other then the compiling of footage and the voice-over narration.


          And Herzog pulls it off really well. He puts great clips of Timothy, each one focusing on him more then the bears(you'll notice there are a lot of foxes, more then you would've thought, I think because Timothy cannot get as intimate with bears as he can with foxes.) and the strange drive that caused him to live in the wilderness on end. We get little tidbits from Timothy's life, each one adding to the next, giving us a picture of him and yet really leaving us with nothing but our own thoughts.

Verdict: The first doc I can really recommend to people. Fantastic. Thank you so much Zarodinu for dictating this to me.
5/5

Bring on march!
I actually consider a lot of movies to be life-changing! I take them to my heart and they melt into my personality.