Documentaries

We’re enormous fans of documentary film here at Toronto Screen Shots. In fact, this very blog grew out of the many reviews we were writing for the annual Hot Docs Canadian International Documentary Festival. Our coverage now extends well beyond Hot Docs to include documentaries in other festivals, on DVD, on television and even films in development.

Comic-Con Episode Four: A Fan's Hope

Comic-Con Episode Four: A Fan’s Hope (Director: Morgan Spurlock): Considering the treasure trove of weird­ness and fas­cin­ating material that a massive event like San Diego’s annual Comic-Con offers up, it’s sur­prising the con­ven­tion hasn’t received the feature-length doc­u­mentary treat­ment until now. Director Morgan Spurlock’s Comic-Con Episode IV: A Fan’s Hope revolves around the 2010 con­ven­tion, exploring the evol­u­tion of Comic-Con from its origin as an event for hard­core comic book enthu­si­asts to one that now releg­ates the actual comic book aspect to the back­ground, with much more of an emphasis put on gen­eral pop cul­ture con­tent such as movies, TV, books, toys, and video games. Along with some of the film’s high pro­file pro­du­cers (Joss Whedon, Harry Knowles, and the unfail­ingly cheerful Stan Lee), numerous other celebs and artists like Frank Miller, Matt Groening, Seth Rogen, Kevin Smith, and Kenneth Branagh weigh in with their take on the con­ven­tion. The doc­u­mentary had a com­panion coffee table book released in July and is Spurlock’s second fea­ture this year after The Greatest Movie Ever Sold.

Incorporated into the probing of the convention’s his­tory and rel­ev­ance are the indi­vidual stories of a handful of Comic-Con attendees. There’s the two ama­teur comic book artists looking for their big break into the busi­ness, who are willing to endure harsh cri­ti­cism of their port­fo­lios from pro­fes­sionals and the sting of rejec­tion. Then there’s the couple who met at the pre­vious year’s con­ven­tion, with the boy­friend hil­ari­ously attempting to break free from the clingy grip of his girl­friend in order to pick up the engage­ment ring (Lord Of The Rings themed, nat­ur­ally) he’ll present to her when he pro­poses during the con­ven­tion panel fea­turing Kevin Smith. Chuck, the crusty owner of America’s largest comics retailer, Mile High Comics, struggles with a decision to sell one of his ultra-rare issues to pay off some debts and gen­er­ally frets about how his sales at the con­ven­tion are going. Another man seeks the Holy Grail of toys for his col­lec­tion, a lim­ited edi­tion figure of Marvel Comics’ Galactus char­acter. Finally, there’s Holly, an aspiring cos­tume designer for whom a two minute appear­ance on stage at the Comic-Con mas­querade event is the biggest moment of the year. She and a small group of friends dress up as char­ac­ters from the Mass Effect video game.

Clearly, with so many examples of arrested devel­op­ment from these folks, there’s plenty of oppor­tunity for ridicule here. I mean, what’s not to laugh at in a scen­ario involving a grown mar­ried man who pur­sues a toy with unwavering con­vic­tion? Laughing at, and not with, these people is an inev­it­able by-product of such fan­at­ical beha­viour, but the viewer also can’t help but develop some level of respect for the pas­sion and focus the char­ac­ters demon­strate toward their obses­sions, des­pite the pum­mel­ling their indi­vidual levels of cool take. As a hard­core fan of U2 and Bruce Springsteen who has, on a number of occa­sions, spent any­where from twelve to six­teen hours at a time waiting in gen­eral admis­sion lineups at their con­certs and gotten puzzled looks from most people when I tell them about it, let me just say that on some level, I can relate to these Comic-Con eccentrics.

Despite the inter­esting sub­ject matter, Spurlock’s doc­u­mentary feels flat and just never achieves liftoff. He juggles a lot of dif­ferent storylines, but many of them lead to unful­filling con­clu­sions and to an uneven movie overall. I’ve seen nearly all of his pre­vious film and tele­vi­sion work and thor­oughly enjoyed every one, and Spurlock, like fellow doc­u­ment­arians Michael Moore and Nick Broomfield, has always taken an active onscreen and nar­rative role in his pro­jects. Here, the cha­ris­matic film­maker barely appears in the film and provides no nar­ra­tion. Perhaps there’s a con­nec­tion, per­haps not.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Pearl Jam Twenty

Pearl Jam Twenty (Director: Cameron Crowe): Director Cameron Crowe revisits his rock journ­alist past with Pearl Jam Twenty, a ret­ro­spective of the Seattle band’s career and the first film that was accepted at this year’s fest­ival. The screening I attended came a couple of days after the film’s world premiere and was sand­wiched in between a couple of con­certs in town for the band, so the numerous hard­core fans in attend­ance were exuberant and clearly in the midst of a Toronto Pearl Jam love-in. More casual or “lapsed fans” (such as myself), who lost touch with the group fol­lowing their first decade of megas­tardom, might find them­selves strug­gling to main­tain a heightened level of interest as the story unfolds, however.

That story begins with a pre-grunge band called Mother Love Bone that fea­tured future Pearl Jam mem­bers Jeff Ament (bass) and Stone Gossard (guitar), who go on to form Pearl Jam after the drug over­dose death of Mother Love Bone singer Andrew Wood. Crowe appro­pri­ately handles the material on Wood with del­icacy, but the rev­er­ence afforded the mar­gin­ally tal­ented singer’s unmem­or­able work by his peers is over­stated and com­pletely failed to con­nect with me. Ament and Gossard are left to start over, adding gui­tarist Mike McCready and vocalist Eddie Vedder, who col­lect­ively form the core of the new group. All four mem­bers have stayed together since, with some­what of a revolving door pro­ces­sion of drum­mers that the film humor­ously addresses in a short seg­ment (the pos­i­tion is even­tu­ally sta­bil­ized with the addi­tion of former Soundgarden drummer Matt Cameron). The standard rock doc/Behind The Music fare is covered: the band grap­pling with the effects of their met­eoric rise to fame, group power struggles, striving to stay music­ally rel­evant, and sig­ni­ficant moments from their career, not­ably their noble attempt at taking on Ticketmaster, and the 2000 Roskilde Festival tragedy in Denmark, where nine fans were crushed to death during the band’s set.

Crowe was the bene­fi­ciary of a band that was very for­ward thinking in doc­u­menting their career, allowing him the luxury of having approx­im­ately 1200 hours of archival footage at his dis­posal. Much of it is rare or pre­vi­ously unseen, such as the clip (long rumoured to exist among Pearl Jam and Nirvana fans) of Vedder meeting sup­posed rival Kurt Cobain at the 1992 MTV Video Music Awards. As Vedder explains it, the two bickered with each other in the press, although the media blew their dis­like for one another far out of pro­por­tion. Other mem­or­able clips include one where Vedder barely man­ages to con­tain his rage toward an overly aggressive security guard during one of their Vancouver shows, plus numerous video examples demon­strating Vedder’s dan­gerous propensity for scaling to the upper levels of various venues while per­forming and launching him­self into the audi­ence. Scattered throughout the film are Crowe-shot live per­form­ances, including a ver­sion of “Alive” that only served to remind me that if I never hear that, or any of the other singles off their over­played debut album again, it’ll be too soon. Band inter­views reveal indi­viduals who come across a little less ser­ious than is prob­ably their public per­cep­tion, which is prob­ably because Vedder, who appears to have mel­lowed with age, was more than insuf­fer­able enough for the entire band.

I prob­ably expected more out of Pearl Jam Twenty, just because a big-name dir­ector like Crowe was at the helm. He does a thor­ough, com­petent job in presenting the band’s col­ourful story, an integral part of which has been their desire to diverge from the status quo career path that rock bands are sup­posed to take, but the film fails to stand out in the rock doc­u­mentary sub-genre.

Pearl Jam Twenty received a world­wide one-time only the­at­rical screening on September 20th. It will be broad­cast on the PBS American Masters series on October 21st, fol­lowed by a DVD and Blu-Ray release on October 25th.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Sarah Palin: You Betcha!

Sarah Palin: You Betcha! (Directors: Nick Broomfield and Joan Churchill): Sarah Palin: You Betcha! seeks to get the real story behind the divisive former vice pres­id­en­tial can­didate and gov­ernor of Alaska, who has somehow man­aged to become a prom­inent figure on the American polit­ical land­scape, des­pite what appears to be an almost laugh­able lack of qual­i­fic­a­tions. Her short­com­ings become the focus of Broomfield and Churchill’s film, which will likely be dis­missed as a char­acter assas­sin­a­tion by the Republican right, but Palin’s defi­cien­cies are impossible to ignore. In fact, they’re front and centre.

Broomfield is best known for his doc­u­ment­aries Kurt & Courtney, Biggie & Tupac, and Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer. Sarah Palin: You Betcha!, making its world premiere at the fest­ival, employs the same style used in many of his films, where Broomfield him­self fre­quently appears on-screen. Documentary pur­ists might bristle at the fact that the dir­ector, like Michael Moore, becomes such a prom­inent figure in his own films (which he also nar­rates), but it’s a style that works for him, mostly because of his quirky charm. One scene in the movie shows Broomfield arriving at an interviewee’s res­id­ence and begin­ning the inter­view with her before he’s even let inside; she talks to him through an open window as he tries to stay upright while standing on the sheet of ice that’s cov­ering her driveway, all while holding on to his ever-present boom micro­phone and audio recording equip­ment. The fact that he’s out­fitted in an ugly flannel jacket and funny looking winter hat with ear­flaps only adds to the enter­tain­ingly oddball scene.

Broomfield and Churchill (who does most of the camera work) spent ten weeks shooting in the dead of winter in Palin’s hometown of Wasilla, Alaska, which could best be summed up as a land of guns, God, and snow. The town itself is a bit of a fas­cin­ating sub­ject: it’s the crystal meth cap­ital of the state and home to a stag­gering 76 churches for the pop­u­la­tion of just 6,000. They inter­view Palin’s par­ents (mostly her father, Chuck), who at first are fairly wel­coming, but who soon become more leery of the film­makers as they find out they’ve been talking to some of their daughter’s enemies and detractors in town. Chuck is wor­ried about another “hit piece” by the media. Former Palin friends and class­mates are harder to find — the few that will talk tell the film­makers of wor­ries about reper­cus­sions from Palin and her sup­porters that could affect their ability to earn a living in the small town, or even their safety. One man from her high school inner circle dis­misses the revi­sionist PR job that Palin and her team did to paint her as a suc­cessful high school ath­lete who came to be known as “Sarah Barracuda” because of her tenacity. He says she was a very mediocre ath­lete and only got the “Barracuda” nick­name because their group of friends simply loved the song with the same name by Heart. The meatier parts of the film are the numerous inter­views with Palin’s former polit­ical col­leagues, who col­lect­ively depict her as someone who felt con­tempt for intel­lec­tuals, was dis­en­gaged from the polit­ical pro­cess, vin­dictive, naive, and dis­loyal. Some vari­ation of the phrase “thrown under the bus” occurs with comedic reg­u­larity from the former co-workers, but it’s most sobering when you hear a ver­sion of it from one of the senior strategists who worked on John McCain’s pres­id­en­tial cam­paign. It’s a damning indict­ment of the McCain camp that they failed to uncover Palin’s skel­etons, which appear to have been hiding in plain sight, before making her their vice pres­id­en­tial nominee.

The film­makers also speak to former family mem­bers, who use many of the same adject­ives that Palin’s polit­ical col­leagues used to describe her. Most prom­inent from this group is her former brother-in-law, Mike Wooten, who was the focus of the “Troopergate” scandal that implic­ated Palin over a pos­sible abuse of her powers, while gov­ernor, to get Wooten fired from his job as a state trooper. Unsurprisingly, he has nothing good to say about her, even making some fairly pointed accus­a­tions about the par­enting skills of Palin and her father. Of course, no doc­u­mentary on Palin would be com­plete without an exam­in­a­tion of her staunch reli­gious beliefs. The most inter­esting inter­views on the topic come from an Alaskan pastor who has a rocky his­tory with Palin, not­ably their dif­fer­ences on homo­sexu­ality in the church. He wor­ries about her mental sta­bility around some­thing as important as nuc­lear launch codes because of the fact that “she believes she’s God’s anointed one”.

Palin her­self remains an elu­sive target and the film never man­ages to get any closer to her than Broomfield’s appear­ances at a few of her book sign­ings, where she’s non-committal to his inter­view requests, and Broomfield turning up in the audi­ence at a couple of her speaking engage­ments. The speaking engage­ment scenes add comedic value, but do come off as some­what grand­standing on his part as he gets kicked out of one event after sur­repti­tiously asking Palin a ques­tion from the venue floor, and resorts to using a mal­func­tioning mega­phone at another as the audi­ence files out of the arena after the event, clearly not inter­ested in talking to him.

Churchill and Broomfield took to an online funding web­site for cre­ative pro­jects called Kickstarter last month in an effort to raise funds so the film could get dis­trib­uted in US theatres. They raised a little more than their target goal of $30,000 in less than three weeks and man­aged to secure a lim­ited release in New York and Los Angeles at the end of September. Audiences will dis­cover a con­sist­ently enter­taining and occa­sion­ally rev­el­atory por­trait of one of the most fas­cin­ating polit­ical fig­ures in recent memory.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

The Story of Film: An Odyssey

The Story of Film: An Odyssey (Director: Mark Cousins): Near the end of Mark Cousins’ monu­mental 15-hour his­tory of cine­matic innov­a­tion, there is a clip from Alexander Sokurov’s 2002 film Russian Ark. This remark­able film was filmed in one con­tinuous take, and the dir­ector rehearsed his cast for six months before the shoot. Then Cousins shows us some footage from a doc­u­mentary about the making of the film, scenes of the cast and crew just after Sokurov yells “Cut!” cheering, clap­ping, embra­cing, crying. It was not unlike the scene in Jackman Hall at the Art Gallery of Ontario at 1:00pm today. An enthu­si­astic audi­ence had gathered each day this week and watched the his­tory of cinema unfold hour after hour, decade after decade.

Six years in the making, The Story of Film: An Odyssey is a remark­able achieve­ment. With fin­an­cing in place for the equi­valent of a one-hour doc­u­mentary, Cousins traveled the globe, inter­viewing key fig­ures and assem­bling clips from almost a thou­sand films, cov­ering more than a cen­tury of film his­tory. But this is no standard talking head doc­u­mentary series. Most dis­tinctive is Cousins’ soothing nar­ra­tion, delivered in his gentle Belfast accent. Choosing to focus on the his­tory of cine­matic innov­a­tion rather than on the standard Hollywood nar­rative, the series ties together advances in tech­nique, tech­no­logy and influ­ence from places as far-flung as India, Mexico, Iran, China and sev­eral African countries.

In addi­tion to his desire to “de-centre” the Hollywood paradigm of film his­tory, he was also careful to make the series approach­able. If you’ll pardon the pun, Cousins stu­di­ously avoids using academic-sounding jargon like “mise-en-scène” or “auteur” and so this will make a won­derful intro­duc­tion to cinema for just about anybody.

It’s def­in­itely a per­sonal approach, and we were for­tu­nate to have the dir­ector in attend­ance each day. While med­it­ative and soothing on the soundtrack, Cousins is impish and lively in person, and he answered ques­tions anim­atedly after each three-hour seg­ment. By the end of the week, we’d come to feel like friends. Not sur­prising, for Cousins and his friend Tilda Swinton are known for cur­ating film events that feel like com­munities. In 2009, for instance, they organ­ized A Pilgrimage, a trav­eling film fest­ival that jour­neyed through Scotland by bus, set­ting up a port­able screen in sev­eral vil­lages to show films.

After today’s final screening, he gathered us together on stage to take a pho­to­graph together. Our odyssey through film his­tory might be fin­ished as far as this enchanting series goes, but I sus­pect it’s really just get­ting started.

Here are the Q&A ses­sions for each day with dir­ector Mark Cousins.

Monday September 12, 2011

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: 16:27

Tuesday September 13, 2011

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: 16:43

Wednesday September 14, 2011

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: 6:10

Thursday September 15, 2011

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: 11:26

Friday September 16, 2011

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: 15:03

Facebook page for The Story of Film: An Odyssey

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Calvet

Calvet (Director: Dominic Allan): The story that Jean-Marc Calvet tells in this essen­tially one-man show is so unbe­liev­able that you might find your­self not believing it. But dir­ector Allan, who doesn’t appear in the film, was on hand to assure the audi­ence that he has done his research, and it all checks out. Here is yet another case where the truth is stranger than fiction.

Calvet today is a renowned painter who lives in Nicaragua and sells his work in New York gal­leries. But less than a decade ago, he’d never picked up a paint­brush. Worse, he was a man on such a path of self-destruction that nobody seemed able to divert him.

Sure, he’d been a troubled teen­ager growing up in the south of France, strug­gling with drug addic­tion and sexual abuse, but then he entered the Foreign Legion and traveled the world. He met a nice woman, got her preg­nant, and became a cop. But even after his son Kevin was born, Calvet con­tinued to dabble with the dark side. His drinking and drug problem never really went away, and he got into rack­et­eering. He went on to work in private security, and even served as a body­guard for American stars like Mel Gibson, Forest Whittaker and Tim Robbins who were vis­iting the Cannes Film Festival.

Through con­nec­tions, he began working as a body­guard for a shady American who offered him a huge salary to come back to the States with him. But he’d have to cut off all ties, leaving his wife and young son behind. Taking a chance, Calvet moved to Miami to become the man’s trusted pro­tector, but the arrange­ment soured when he real­ized he wasn’t get­ting the prom­ised money. By this time he’d real­ized that he was working for a mob­ster, and the man was so para­noid that he had all his bank accounts in Calvet’s name. It was only a matter of time before Calvet began to look for an oppor­tunity to get paid. When the time came, he absconded with more than half a mil­lion dol­lars and found his way to Central America.

In Costa Rica, Calvet bought him­self a house and a nightclub, but became too para­lyzed by his fear to live the high life for long. It’s here where his addic­tions nearly took him, and his para­noia mixed with his tre­mendous guilt over abandoning his child. Punishing him­self with larger and larger doses of drugs and booze, he began to hear voices and see vis­ions. Almost in a trance, he dis­covered paint cans under his stair­case and after plunging his fists into them, began to smear the walls of his house. In this way, he dis­covered painting.

Years later, clean and sober and using his art as therapy, he resolves to find Kevin and hope­fully to recon­cile. While the first part of the film fea­tures Calvet remem­bering his past, the last half is unwritten as the film­maker travels with him in search of his lost boy. It’s clear how important this is to him, and also how nervous he is about the outcome.

The res­ulting film is by turns har­rowing, grip­ping, and moving. Through art and sheer force of will, Calvet is able to des­troy the dark parts of his per­son­ality and redis­cover the lost boy in him­self. Only then does he feel worthy enough to search for Kevin. Director Allan knows when to stay out of the way, although his visual and sonic touches do add con­sid­er­ably to the telling of the tale. And what a tale it is.

Official site of the film

{ Comments on this entry are closed }