Thursday, May 6, 2010

12th & Delaware

12th & Delaware (Directors: Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady): In Fort Pierce, Florida, a battle for abor­tion rights is taking place at the inter­sec­tion of 12th Street and Delaware Avenue. On one side of the street is the pro-life Pregnancy Care Center and across the street is an abor­tion clinic called A Woman’s World.

Every day at the crack of dawn, a pro-life sup­porter keeps a watchful eye on the abor­tion clinic. Later in the day, more recruits show up and patrol the side­walk out­side of the clinic. They dis­play signs and graphic images of unborn babies to the passing traffic. When women visit the clinic, the pro-life sup­porters call out to them and urge them not to go in.

All across America there are sim­ilar abor­tion battles taking place. Pro-life centres often appear next door or across the street from abor­tion clinics. The hope is that women will enter a pro-life clinic by mis­take where they will be per­suaded to con­tinue with their preg­nancy. In some cases they are offered fin­an­cial sup­port but sadly, these prom­ises are almost never kept.

Directors Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady do a mas­terful job of providing an enga­ging and fairly objective view of the two sides in 12th & Delaware. Both groups are given equal screen time but it is the pro-life group that has all of the “inter­esting” char­ac­ters. The Hot Docs audi­ence often groaned or gasped in dis­be­lief at some of the things the film’s pro-life sup­porters were telling women in their clinic – that abor­tions can cause breast cancer or that con­doms work only 80 per cent of the time.

I think it is fair to say that the pro-life sup­porters in the film aren’t rep­res­ent­ative of all people that share the pro-life stance. The film’s pro-life sup­porters tend to say or do almost any­thing to pre­vent an abor­tion. This sets up sev­eral scenes that are dif­fi­cult to watch because they are so embar­rassing! Oddly enough, this is one of the aspects of the film that I also found appealing. It reminded me a lot of Ewing and Grady’s pre­vious film, Jesus Camp.

For me, the best moment in the film occurs when a woman pulls into the abor­tion clinic parking lot and con­fronts a pro-life sup­porter. She wants to know why the group must dis­play graphic images of an unborn fetus to passing traffic, including her child’s school bus. This woman is obvi­ously a Christian and tells the pro-life sup­porters that they are mis­guided and that there are better ways to get their mes­sage across.

Ewing and Grady had unpre­ced­ented cooper­a­tion and access to both groups, taking the viewer into each of their build­ings for a detailed look at how they operate. The preg­nancy centre uses sev­eral tac­tics in per­suading women to con­tinue with their preg­nan­cies – graphic videos, lit­er­ature, ultra­sounds and coun­seling. Across the street the abor­tion clinic oper­ates in an envir­on­ment of fear and heightened security. Cameras mon­itor the premises. Doctors are whisked into the clinic with sheets over their heads to pro­tect their iden­tities (during the filming of 12th & Delaware, abor­tion pro­vider Dr. George Tiller was murdered in his church).

I was sur­prised to learn that there are over 4,000 pro-life preg­nancy centres in the US and just over 850 abor­tion clinics. This well-crafted film doesn’t try to resolve any of the issues in the abor­tion battle but it provides a revealing look at both sides that is simply fascinating.

Official site of the film

9/10(9/10)

Second Look: Drew Kerr

12th & Delaware is the latest fea­ture doc­u­mentary from Oscar-nominated co-directors Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady, the film­makers behind the excel­lent Jesus Camp, which took a dis­turbing look at the reli­gious indoc­trin­a­tion prac­tices at a Pentecostal summer camp for chil­dren. Their latest finds them focusing on the abortion/pro-life issue, as told through the events that occur at an abor­tion clinic called A Woman’s World Medical Center, and the church-affiliated Pregnancy Care Center, which just hap­pens to be on the opposite side of the street, at the inter­sec­tion of 12th Street and Delaware Avenue in Fort Pierce, Florida. The set­ting is prac­tic­ally ready-made for a re-examining of the ongoing, incen­diary American debate, and Ewing and Grady take a decidedly neutral approach in showing both sides of this divisive issue. Slightly more screen time seems to have been given to the Pregnancy Care Center side, but not in a way that slants things in the pro-life direction.

The centre is run by a woman named Anne, who appears genu­inely invested emo­tion­ally in her work and the cause she believes in. Losing patients that decide to opt for an abor­tion brings her close to tears and “wins” (patients choosing to not ter­minate their preg­nancy) elicit equally emo­tional responses of joy. Some of the Pregnancy Care Center’s methods appear to border on the uneth­ical, or just plainly are. Misinformation is given about the actual abor­tion pro­cess, patients are falsely told that abor­tions can cause breast cancer, and some patients are informed (as alleged by Candace, the oper­ator of the abor­tion clinic) that they’re not as far along in their preg­nan­cies as they actu­ally are, increasing the chances that by the time they make a decision they’ll be too far along to leg­ally obtain an abor­tion. Then there’s those manip­u­lative “Hi Daddy” and “Hi Mommy” “mes­sages” from the fetus that get added by tech­ni­cians to the ultra­sound prin­touts for the parent or parents.

Life over at A Woman’s World Medical Center appears sig­ni­fic­antly more stressful for Candace and her hus­band. Threats of viol­ence and van­dalism are an everyday worry, and while the clinic hasn’t mon­et­arily brought the couple any­thing more than a modest life­style, Candace is also strongly ded­ic­ated to her work, believing women need a place like hers that gives them an option. Picketers are a con­stant pres­ence out­side the clinic, many of whom fit your “reli­gious nut” cat­egory. They walk around with signs showing grue­some pic­tures of aborted fetuses, har­angue young women (and teen­agers) as they exit and leave the clinic, amus­ingly preach their beliefs while standing out­side closed win­dows of the clinic and speaking loudly, and one par­tic­u­larly scary pro-lifer even stalks/stakes out one of the ren­dez­vous drop-off points where the doc­tors who per­form the abor­tions get picked up by Candace’s hus­band in a bright yellow Mustang (the doc­tors follow such a pro­tocol and are brought to the clinic which sheets cov­ering them to pro­tect their iden­tities). The Mustang is effect­ively used sev­eral times by Ewing and Grady, with its ominous starting roar and its slow backing out of the clinic’s garage acting as a potent little dra­matic enhance­ment in the movie.

Whenever I see a film or tele­vi­sion show that man­ages to get people to open up on such intensely per­sonal issues I marvel at how brave/stupid/attention-starved they are. I would cat­egorize the women who vis­ited the clinic or centre that talked to the Ewing and Grady as more brave than the other two adject­ives, but my mind still boggles that the dir­ectors got as much insight into these women’s minds as they did. Combine this with a well-rounded look at the two med­ical facil­ities and their prin­cipals, and the result is a com­pel­ling, thoughtful film about a very tough sub­ject that refrains from taking sides or edit­or­i­al­izing, just let­ting the facts and hap­pen­ings speak for themselves.

8/10(8/10)

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

The People vs. George Lucas

The People vs. George Lucas (Director: Alexandre O. Philippe): The concept of The People vs. George Lucas is suc­cinctly summed up in its title, presenting the case of the con­ten­tious rela­tion­ship that has formed over the past decade or so between the Star Wars cre­ator and his numerous ali­en­ating mis­steps with the fran­chise, and said franchise’s diehard fans. Lucas apo­lo­gists get into the mix as well, but for the most part it’s the pissed off fan­boys who are granted the most screen time.

The film­makers launched a web­site in 2007 asking for input from the public on the topic, which garnered over 600 hours of raw footage from 700+ sub­mis­sions. The wealth of material involved webcam rants, stop motion movies and skits, draw­ings, com­puter anim­a­tion, and “fan edits” (where someone re-edits one of the movies in the Star Wars series to their own liking). Director Alexandre Philippe refers to the fin­ished product as “a fully par­ti­cip­atory doc­u­mentary”. A handful of not­able fig­ures from the Star Wars uni­verse (including Lucas bio­grapher Dale Pollock and Lucas’ former pro­du­cing partner Gary Kurtz) are also inter­viewed, providing a nice coun­ter­bal­ance to the occa­sion­ally over-enthusiastic view­points from the rabid fans (are these people still arguing about whether Greedo shot first?). One of the most inter­esting inter­views in the film is with dir­ector Francis Ford Coppola, who does little to sug­ar­coat his belief that Lucas squandered his talent by suc­cumbing to the dark side of fran­chise and mer­chand­ising riches. Like many, I thought the newer pre­quel tri­logy was stun­ningly bad and even his involve­ment (as a co-writer and exec­utive pro­ducer) in the recent dis­ap­pointing Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull film did Lucas no favours. When you stop to think about it, it truly is mys­ti­fying how someone with the vision and cre­ativity he once pos­sessed can manage to lose it so emphatically.

Lucas’ ques­tion­able fran­chise decisions provide ample fodder for dis­gruntled fans to voice their dis­sent and it’s hard to defend him on most of them. A clip shows the dir­ector testi­fying before Congress about the dangers and artistic crimin­ality of col­our­izing black and white films, yet he had no prob­lems “tweaking” Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi for their own “spe­cial edi­tions”, adding CGI effects shots and restoring the ori­ginal master copies (with the revi­sions added) for a the­at­rical re-release and VHS/DVD transfer. That a cleaned up ver­sion of the ori­ginal movies (without the newer bells and whistles) isn’t avail­able is a major source of con­tro­versy within the fan com­munity. Lucas’ com­pany, Lucasfilm, even refuses to rent old prints of the ori­ginals to theatres who want to do ret­ro­spect­ives. This, and some related issues that are covered fall under the umbrella of one com­pel­ling ques­tion: how do you measure the rights of someone who cre­ated a cer­tain piece of art versus the audience’s rights to that art? Especially when it’s some­thing as big as the Star Wars phe­nomenon? The ques­tion doesn’t get a nice, tidy answer in the film, which is okay, since that’s not what The People vs. George Lucas set out to do. What isn’t okay is the repet­itive nature of the inter­views, which tends to recycle sim­ilar view­points from dif­ferent interviewees.

One need not be a Star Wars geek to appre­ciate the doc­u­mentary — I’m cer­tainly not, though all of the films from the ori­ginal tri­logy still rank among my favourite movies. Even if you’re not a fan, there’s no escaping the respect due to a cul­tural piece that has so unpre­ced­en­tedly man­aged to tran­scend its ori­ginal form and take on a life of its own. The film ably cap­tures this aspect of the Star Wars sub­cul­ture, but fails to provide a sus­tained, grip­ping piece on its tit­ular topic, which feels well past its due date at this point. The Phantom Menace, the first movie in the pre­quel tri­logy, came out more than 11 years ago and the last, Revenge of the Sith, was released in 2005. Anyone who has seen all six movies in the series has no doubt already had a con­ver­sa­tion or debate about aspects of this topic with their friends a long, long time ago.

Official site of the film

5/10(5/10)

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Dreamland (Draumalandið)

Dreamland (Draumalandið) (Directors: Þhorfinnur Guðnason and Andri Snær Magnasson): My wife and I had the very good for­tune to visit Iceland in September 2008, mere days before the col­lapse of their banking system. Since we were there par­tially to cover the Reykjavik International Film Festival, we were invited to a recep­tion by the won­derful people at the Icelandic Film Centre where we saw clips of films in pro­gress and were able to meet the dir­ectors. One of the most inter­esting pro­jects we saw was Dreamland, based on the best-selling (at least in Iceland) book by Andri Snær Magnasson. I was able to speak to him that day and looking back, his sense of urgency as he warned of the short-sightedness of Iceland’s politi­cians was eerily pres­cient. The ensuing eco­nomic col­lapse has had rami­fic­a­tions around the world. So you can ima­gine how eager I was to finally see the fin­ished film. Unfortunately, my high expect­a­tions were not to be met.

Dreamland starts out well enough, giving a quick primer on recent Icelandic his­tory since achieving inde­pend­ence from Denmark in 1918. Founded to be res­ol­utely neutral, it didn’t take long to become a cog in the Cold War shortly after World War 2. The gov­ern­ment allowed the US mil­itary to build a base at Keflavik, and that base provided 2,000 jobs until it was closed in 2006. In a nation of just 300,000, this was a major eco­nomic blow, and so Iceland’s leaders went looking for a quick fix. With an abund­ance of clean geo-thermal energy, they decided to offer the sur­plus to the alu­minum industry. Aluminum smelting is one of the most energy-intensive and environmentally-unfriendly pro­cesses in the resource busi­ness, but Iceland’s leaders figured that it would all happen in sparsely pop­u­lated areas. Apart from the envir­on­mental effects, though, Magnasson argues that this kind of megapro­ject actu­ally harms the Icelandic eco­nomy in the long run. He’s turned out to be right.

I’m sure in his book, all of this is laid out and argued in a coherent fashion. The same cannot be said for the film. Early on, we’re warned omin­ously by experts that politi­cians often use fear to con­trol the elect­orate. Iceland’s politi­cians warned that if they didn’t build these megapro­jects, the eco­nomy would not grow and that jobs might dis­ap­pear forever. However, Dreamland stoops to the same fear tac­tics to make its case, and the irony seems lost on the film­makers. Ominous music accom­panies aggressive heli­copter fly­overs of unspoiled land­scapes, and these shots are used over and over and over. Half of the talking head inter­views are with Magnasson, who is only iden­ti­fied as “Writer” and not as co-director of the film nor as author of the book on which the film is based. The other inter­views are unhelpful, with some sub­jects seeming to jump from one side of the argu­ment to the other later in the film. Magnasson also presents a few too many shots of farmers and their fam­ilies who will be affected by the alu­minum plants. One or two farmers would have made his point.

The overall effect is that his few valid points are lost as the film becomes a heavy-handed and mind-numbing polemic. One clumsily-edited sequence attempts to equate the envir­on­mental damage of extracting bauxite (aluminum’s raw material) in India with smelting alu­minum in Iceland, when the two pro­cesses are com­pletely different.

I bought a copy of his book in English when I was in Iceland in 2008, and I’m looking for­ward to reading it, now mainly to see how a respected and intel­li­gent journ­alist could turn it into such a jumbled mess of a film.

Official site of the film

6/10(6/10)

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Horses

Horses (Director: Liz Mermin): This film chron­icles a year in the lives of three Irish race­horses, and although we hear plenty from the human trainers, it’s an attempt to make the horses them­selves the prot­ag­on­ists. In that respect, it’s only par­tially successful.

Mermin spent a year with Paul Nolan and his brother James at their Toberona Stables, training her camera on three of their best hopes for suc­cess. Diminutive but brave Ardalan has a few wins under his belt, but is having trouble moving up to races where he must jump high fences. Joncol is a gen­tleman giant, untested but per­haps the stable’s best pro­spect. And vet­eran Cuan na Grai is still recov­ering from a tendon injury. Though he’s had suc­cess, this season will determine whether he returns to win­ning or is forced into early retire­ment. The horses clearly have their own per­son­al­ities. While Ardalan seems to only per­form when it suits him, Joncol is a determ­ined racer, and Cuan na Grai is described by his hand­lers as a “head case,” eccentric and skit­tish around strangers.

The real char­ac­ters, though, are the men who work with the horses. Paul is both charming and blunt. He spends every waking moment trying to get the best out of these equine ath­letes. He makes it clear that while it is a busi­ness for him, he cher­ishes each of these animals. He speaks fondly of recently-retired cham­pion Accordion Etoile, now free to run around at will in the pad­dock with the family’s pet pony. Groom Gerry is even more of a softie around the horses, con­stantly making small talk with them. It was fas­cin­ating to watch them work, and to realize how much they know about each of their animals and the con­di­tions for any given race day.

I was sur­prised to learn that each of these horses might race only 4–5 times in a year, and that an injury can take them out of com­mis­sion for a year or more. I was also sur­prised that at 5 years of age, Ardalan and Joncol were just embarking on their racing careers. That means that each horse is a sig­ni­ficant invest­ment and the owners and trainers only have a few oppor­tun­ities to make back their money and hope­fully a bit more. This human drama in addi­tion to the pent-up anti­cip­a­tion of the horses them­selves made each race shown in the film a nail-biter. We’re rooting for Toberona Stables as much as we’re rooting for each horse. If there was any doubt in my mind before, the film clearly shows how much these horses love to run and even more how they love to win.

Mermin takes a few risks in an effort to get inside the horse’s minds. Her innov­ative use of sound and music to indicate each horse’s mental state may be lost on a few audi­ence mem­bers. The same goes for her use of flash­backs and a dream sequence. In spite of these effects, the rough nature of some of the camera work as well as a few too many close-up shots of the horses’ faces detract slightly from the film’s effort to cap­ture the equine view­point. Nevertheless, Horses gives us an emotionally-involving glimpse into the lives of a few equine ath­letes and of the people who care for them.

Here is the Q&A with dir­ector Liz Mermin from after the screening, con­ducted by Hot Docs pro­grammer Angie Driscoll:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (ver­sion 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest ver­sion here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Duration: 18:20

7/10(7/10)

{ Comments on this entry are closed }