Doc Soup

Living in Emergency: Stories of Doctors Without Borders

by James McNally on April 16, 2009

in Doc Soup,Documentaries,Film Festivals

Editor’s Note: Doc Soup is a monthly documentary screening programme run by the good folks at Hot Docs. It gives audiences in Toronto (and now Calgary and Vancouver!) their regular doc fix each year from the fall through to the spring, leading up to the Hot Docs festival itself.

Living in Emergency: Stories of Doctors Without Borders (Director: Mark Hopkins): Judging by the title alone, I was a little apprehensive that this film would be nothing but a slick promo for Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders), the Paris-based crisis medical charity, but I’m happy to say that Mark Hopkins’ film is a many-shaded portrait of some of the bravest and most dedicated people in the world.

I’ve always respected the work that MSF does, and the film does a great job of showing the actual conditions that these volunteer doctors work in. But it goes well beyond that, showing the effects of the strain of working a six-month “mission” in places where there may be no other medical infrastructure for miles around. We follow several doctors on assignments in Liberia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, including two who are on their first mission. The staggering statistics say that fewer than half of all doctors return for a second mission, and it’s not hard to see why. Conditions are never ideal, but lack of medical supplies compounded with communication difficulties, and a suddenly increased load of responsibility all take their toll. Some of the veterans speak openly of “running on empty” and everyone smokes and drinks too much. One of the veterans, Dr. Chiara Lepora, encourages everyone to have as much sex as possible, since they’re surrounded by death all day long and that “sex is life.” During one scene, an intoxicated Dr. Chris Brasher boasts that MSF accomplishes more than UNICEF, with its endless meetings and plans. MSF volunteers are doers, and they all seem to share that unfussy attitude.

But the mandate that encourages that spirit of doing also has clear limitations. MSF operates solely as a crisis medical provider, as in war zones and after natural disasters. When those conditions cease to exist, MSF close their bases and move on. Given that many of these countries don’t have functioning medical infrastructures, this can seem heartless, but keeping their mission focused on emergency help has maintained the organization’s edge and responsiveness.

We do witness the closing of a base in Liberia, and Dr. Lepora’s going-away party is bittersweet for the local medical staff being left behind, but MSF has stubbornly refused to expand their mandate into development work, leaving that to other NGOs and the local ministries of health. As Dr. Brasher bluntly points out, though, every person they help with emergency surgery or other intervention is someone who likely would have died without their help. And though this good work takes a toll on the volunteers, it also has immediate rewards. So although many of the doctors don’t return for second missions, the ones that do often spend the rest of their lives in one far-flung and ill-equipped outpost after another. And they wouldn’t have it any other way.

Hopkins’ film drives home the point that no matter how much money we in the West donate to charity, there still need to be people on the ground actually doing something to help in these emergency situations. I can’t think of anyone getting closer to the situation than a doctor or nurse up to her wrists in gore, putting yet another broken body back together. It’s not an easy sight to look at, but that doesn’t mean it’s not beautiful.

I had only one small quibble with the film and that is that with so many people speaking accented English, the sound mix was too muddled. In the post-screening Q&A, director Mark Hopkins promised a better sound mix on the theatrical/DVD release, as well as better use of subtitles.

Official web site of the film

Here is the Q&A with director Mark Hopkins from after the screening:

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: 15:02

8/10 (8/10)

Tagged as: africa, congo, doctors, healthcare, liberia, war

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Guest of Cindy Sherman

by James McNally on March 9, 2009

in Doc Soup,Documentaries,Film Festivals

Guest of Cindy Sherman (Directors: Paul H-O and Tom Donahue): Paul Hasegawa-Overacker is a surfer and sometime artist who started a public access television show in the early 90s called Gallery Beat. It was an irreverent look at the New York art scene and although he achieved some local notoriety, mainstream success was not really in the cards. But then in 2000, he met and managed to interview notoriously media-shy photographer Cindy Sherman, and not only did it give Gallery Beat a boost but it led to a five-year-long romantic relationship. The problem was that the show was already winding down. The New York art scene was becoming more “corporate” in the 2000s and galleries were less likely to allow scrappy shows like Gallery Beat access to film their openings and other events, especially if they were going to be portrayed in a bad light. After Paul gives up the show, he begins working on other ideas, but is essentially living at Sherman’s house as a “kept man.” This begins to bother him, especially after an infamous event he describes where he was seated several tables away from Sherman at an event with his name card labelled only “Guest of Cindy Sherman.”

The film is essentially a collection of home movies, with footage from old Gallery Beat episodes woven in, and a few more recent interviews likely conducted by co-director Donahue. Sherman, who gave her initial approval to the project when her and Paul were together, has distanced herself from the finished product. I can understand why. Hasegawa-Overacker (or H-O as he prefers) is a slightly obnoxious attention-seeker and the film seems to be his attempt to deal with a seriously bruised ego. Despite the inclusion of a few others who suffer from what he calls “famous girlfriend syndrome,” it’s clear to me that his film is just another attempt to recapture the spotlight, and it’s even sadder that he still has to define himself against his famous now-ex girlfriend. I wonder if Sherman, who generally comes across as a private but generally decent person, took the project as a provocation, and whether it had anything to do with their eventual breakup. H-O isn’t a monster, but he just seems to have a strange sense of entitlement that got under my skin as the film progressed.

While Guest of Cindy Sherman offers an interesting glimpse of the sometimes incestuous world of modern art, and H-O seems like someone I could at least sit down and have a beer with, I still found the end result to be slightly icky.

Guest of Cindy Sherman screens on Wednesday March 11th at the Bloor Cinema. Screenings are at 6:30pm and 9:15pm

Official site of the film
Clips from the film

7/10 (7/10)

Tagged as: art, celebrity, nyc

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Milking the Rhino

by James McNally on February 9, 2009

in Doc Soup,Documentaries,Film Festivals

Milking the Rhino (Director: David E. Simpson): As a child growing up in the 70s, I was a huge fan of Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom, even as I laughed at some of the staginess (e.g. Marlin Perkins: “Jim will wrestle the giant man-eating crocodile while I stay here in the jeep.”). What I didn’t realize at that age was that the image of the wealthy white big game hunter was simply changing its face. Ever since white men “discovered” Africa, they’ve always wanted to assert their will over its wildlife as well as its people. By the 70s, hunting was giving way to “safari” trips where tourists could observe game up close and shoot with cameras instead of guns, but the dynamic hadn’t changed all that much. And what was always missing from the picture was any idea of the people who actually lived on the land. This is the “myth of Africa” promoted by tourism operators from the beginning, and nowadays, it’s alive and well.

The title of David E. Simpson’s lushly photographed film comes from the conflict between wildlife conservation and the needs of cattle herding tribes like the Maasai in Kenya and the Himba in Namibia. The film explores some of the “new conservation” approaches being tried in those two countries. Communities are establishing their own conservation areas and running their own tourist lodges to generate income. Meanwhile, the traditional cattle herding lifestyle is threatened by the disappearance of grazing land to accomodate these new wildlife preserves. In addition, the presence of wild animals (including predators like lions and cheetahs) close to herds of cattle that represent the livelihood (and indeed, the manhood) of many leads to inevitable conflicts. Cattle have always been the traditional source of income for the Maasai and the Himba, and herdsmen don’t want to risk losing their animals to wild predators. As Helen Gichohi, director of the African Wildlife Federation says, conservationists are hoping that the success of the tourist lodges will make the communities begin to see wildlife as “a second cattle.”

Less than twenty years ago, many of the areas featured in the film were barren of wild animals due mostly to poaching. By focusing on long term profitability instead of quick gain, the new conservationists hope to get the communities onside, and it looks like it’s beginning to work. During one seemingly endless drought season in Kenya, the community was able to support itself on the income from its tourist lodge, even though many of its cattle died. Diversifying their sources of income can only make these rural communities more viable in the long term, even though tourism is not completely immune to droughts of its own.

The film is beautifully photographed and highlights important work, and yet for me it never rises to greatness. Part of the problem might be that in trying to turn our eyes away from the beauty of the wildlife and the landscape toward messy and complex human interactions, it punctures our idea of the “myth of Africa”. This is actually a good thing, but it might make the film hard to love. As well, even though the transitions between the two cultures and countries is clear, the differences between their conservation approaches isn’t quite as clear cut, leaving me a little bit confused. I actually think focusing more tightly on one community and one approach might have made the film’s impact stronger. As well, as someone who wants to support responsible tourism, I could have used a bit more practical information on which lodges are fully run by their own communities. As we see in one segment, there are a few places where the profits are being siphoned off to outsiders.

This isn’t the sort of “Planet Earth” wildlife film you might be used to seeing, and for that very reason it’s an eye-opener and definitely worth seeing.

Milking the Rhino screens on Wednesday, February 11, at 6:30 p.m. and 9:15 p.m. at the Bloor Cinema

Official site of the film

7/10 (7/10)

Tagged as: africa, conservation, kenya, namibia

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Recipes for Disaster (Katastrofin Aineksia)

by James McNally on January 18, 2009

in Doc Soup,Documentaries,Film Festivals

Recipes for Disaster (Katastrofin Aineksia) (Director: John Webster): Anglo-Finn director John Webster decides to put his family (wife and two young sons) on a strict oil diet for a year and to film the results. Ignore the standard archival footage and serious voiceover about the problems of climate change; the most interesting thing about this film is definitely the family dynamics. Webster’s wife is a reluctant participant and avoids telling her work colleagues about the experiment, not wanting to draw attention to her family. She also calls out Webster for his self-righteousness several times, at one point sarcastically calling him “a real Jesus.”

And it’s a valid point. After Webster bans all oil products, including plastic, from his family’s life, things become very difficult indeed. They try to make their own toothpaste, with predictably dire results. They are forced to buy industrial rolls of toilet paper to avoid plastic packaging. It’s not enough for Webster, who decides they need to throw out nearly every plastic item in their house. In short, his obsession makes him less and less sympathetic as the film progresses. In the eyes of his family, especially his wife, he becomes well-nigh insufferable.

Luckily, by the end of the film, he’s recognized the ridiculousness of his behaviour, while still acknowledging the importance of his crusade. After the year is up, the family continue with a modified form of their diet, while still allowing certain items such as toothpaste. Webster had replaced his car with one that had been modified to run on biodiesel, and he continues to drive that. He buys his electricity from a green source, and equips his cottage with solar panels. All in all, he recognizes that he cannot change the world all by himself. In fact, he can’t even change his family without some compromise. But the film provides an entertaining lesson in what can actually be done, and it makes its points with self-deprecating humour.

Normally, Doc Soup screenings are accompanied by a Q&A with the director present. Since it would go against the director’s principles to fly from Finland to Toronto just to answer questions, he spoke to the audience via Skype videochat. This worked remarkably well, and showed that he was still attempting to live up to the lofty goals with which he began, to reduce his family’s carbon footprint.

Official site of the film

7/10 (7/10)

Tagged as: climatechange, environment, family, finland

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Chris and Don. A Love Story

by James McNally on December 11, 2008 · 3 comments

in Doc Soup,Documentaries,Film Festivals

Chris and Don. A Love Story (2007, Directors: Tina Mascara and Guido Santi): Don Bachardy was just 16 when he met Christopher Isherwood on a gay beach in Southern California. Prudently, Isherwood waited until Don was 18 before making his move. That is, if a 48-year-old man picking up a teenager can ever be considered prudent. Despite a 30-year age difference, Don and Chris built a lasting relationship that continued until Isherwood’s death (at the age of 82) in 1986. Based mostly on interviews with Bachardy, now in his 70s, Chris and Don is a sweet remembrance of a unique relationship, but as a film, I found it a bit flat.

I knew before seeing it that I’d be comparing it with Bob and Jack’s 52-Year Adventure, which explored similar territory, but with the benefit of having both parties alive to tell each side of the story. Sweet as Don’s remembrances of Chris might be, there’s not much drama there. Talking about a well-loved spouse who’s been gone more than twenty years is bound to become an exercise tainted by nostalgia. Though there were a few bumps in the relationship, Don (or the directors) seemed to gloss over them.

Perhaps most uncomfortable for me was the vast difference in their ages, as well as the fact that Isherwood was a well-known writer while Don was an admitted celebrity-seeker. Both men sought things in their relationship which are generally best found outside of a romantic entanglement. The number of times the father-son dynamic was mentioned was remarkable, and yet the directors didn’t dig very deeply into what could have been disturbing territory. Isherwood found in Bachardy the son he never had, as well as the youth he had lost. In return, Bachardy found a replacement for his disapproving father, as well as a teacher and someone who could introduce him to other famous people. There is a moment when Don recalls his frustration at being completely formed by Isherwood, and I’d have been curious to see more of that, especially since he now seems to have completely made peace with the fact that everything he has achieved in his life (he is an accomplished portrait painter) has been under the patronage of his husband.

Technically, the film is solid but unadventurous, although it does attempt some whimsy by animating images Isherwood drew of his pet names for himself (an old horse) and Bachardy (a cat). I found the animations crudely executed, though my wife thought they were cute.

Overall, then, it felt like a bit of a missed opportunity to me. I can understand the directors’ reticence since they had such great access to Bachardy, but I think some tougher questions could have made the film stronger.

Official site of the film

6/10 (6/10)