Tag Archive for 'Hot Docs'

A Table In Heaven

Published
by
James McNally
on December 5, 2007
in Doc Soup, Documentaries, Film Festivals and Hot Docs
. Closed

A Table In Heaven

A Table In Heaven (Director: Andrew Rossi, 2007): Sirio Maccioni first opened Le Cirque in New York in 1974, after years and years of working his way up from busboy to waiter to maître d’hôtel. His star rose through the 70s and 80s and the restaurant attracted the rich and famous, including Henry Kissinger, Pope John Paul II and President Ronald Reagan. But as the film begins in 2004, the place has grown a bit stale, and the crowd of old regulars (and the emphasis is clearly on “old”) are dying off and no new customers are replacing them. Sirio decides to close and reopen in a new location. With his three sons Marco, Mario and Mauro, he sets out to plot the future of the family business. A new restaurant will be a fresh start, with a new location, a new chef, a new menu, and a new attitude. At least that’s what the younger generation wants. Sirio is from the old school, though, and is not willing to give up his micromanaging ways. Andrew Rossi’s camera was there to capture it all: Sirio’s charming tale of an uneducated Tuscan immigrant made good, his years of building relationships with New York City’s most rich and famous denizens, the gradual fading of his reputation, and then his family’s often fractious effort to get their groove back. Though it seems at times like a particularly rancorous episode of the Food Network’s Opening Soon, there are greater forces at work in the Maccioni story. Sirio complains bitterly of getting old, and refuses to retire. And yet the restaurant culture has changed and passed him by. His sons recognize this and want desperately to attract a younger clientele, but Sirio’s loyalty is to the people who helped him make it, and it hurts his new venture. Resistance to change is really about the fear of oblivion (through death and forgetting) and Sirio’s struggle is one that all of us can understand.

Luckily, the story doesn’t end when the film does, and it appears that the new Le Cirque is finally adapting to the new environment. Instead of singling out celebrities and treating everyone else as second-class citizens, the new culture prefers that everyone have the same experience, and from all accounts, they’re trying. The menu has been freshened as well, despite Sirio’s objections. A bad review from the New York Times, along with the footage of the opening, made it painfully obvious that the restaurant needs more than nostalgia and a charismatic owner to appeal to the new generation of diners.

Rossi has captured more than a restaurant or a family story. He’s given us a glimpse of a man on the run from his own mortality, a man who’s cultivated “friendships” among the most visible and powerful only to realize that it won’t save him in the end. It’s heartbreaking and a little bit terrifying. For me, the most satisfying moments are not in the restaurant at all, but around the table when Sirio’s longsuffering wife Egidiana serves up a simple meal of pasta to the whole family. It’s a shame that the man has so little time for that sort of meal.

Here is the Q&A with director Andrew Rossi from after the screening. Hot Docs/Doc Soup programmer Sean Farnel moderates and asks the first few questions himself:


Duration: 13:46

Official site for the film

7/10(7/10)

Manda Bala (Send a Bullet)

Published
by
James McNally
on November 8, 2007
in Doc Soup, Documentaries, Film Festivals and Hot Docs
. Closed

Manda Bala (Send a Bullet)

Manda Bala (Send a Bullet) (Director: Jason Kohn): First-time director Jason Kohn’s film was a controversial winner of the Grand Jury Prize at Sundance this past year, and after seeing it, I can understand why. It’s a travelogue of sorts, whisking us around Brazil to talk to police, politicians, prosecutors, businessmen, victims of kidnapping, and even a kidnapper himself. The film’s tagline is “When the rich steal from the poor, the poor steal the rich” and the basic outline is that it’s a film about a culture of theft. We see all the precautions the rich are forced to take to avoid the ransom kidnappings that are now widespread in cities like Sao Paolo. They buy bulletproof cars, they take helicopters and contemplate implanting microchips under their skin. We hear from a kidnap victim who had both of her ears sliced off, a common tactic of the kidnappers to show how serious they are. Kidnapping is such a growth industry that now plastic surgeons have developed ways of creating new ears from rib cartilage. On the other hand, we’re introduced to corrupt politician Jader Barbalho, whose graft included the establishment of frog farms to launder government grant money. Recurring images of the frogs, including a memorable sequence of one frog devouring another, seem to work as a crude metaphor. With a population of 20 million, Sao Paolo’s residents are just as crammed together as the hapless frogs, and the resulting anarchy is almost inevitable.

Kohn’s film is full of startling and often beautiful imagery, and his conscious decision to shoot on film and in anamorphic widescreen tells me a lot. Along with a jaunty soundtrack of Brazilian samba, the gorgeous images look better than they have a right to. I caught myself asking whether a film about such ugliness had a right to look so pretty. And I think that’s where my problem with the film lies. It feels like a carefully-constructed object that was planned around aesthetic, rather than moral, concerns. It looks great, but I’m just not sure there’s a real heart to the film. Many of the director’s choices seem calculated to distance the viewer from the horrors he’s observing. For instance, Kohn made the decision to forego subtitles in many of the interviews, including the kidnap victim’s. Instead, we hear the dialogue in Brazilian Portuguese, and then hear the translation in English from the translator, who is also in the frame with the subject. It’s a strange effect. As well, there is no attempt at any analysis of the problems of Brazil, other than a throwaway line about how the Portuguese established Brazil simply to plunder it.

I remember hearing as a young student about how Brasilia was designed from the ground up as the new capital of Brazil, and the film does convey some of the tarnished futuristic optimism that was coming out of the country in the 60s and 70s. Kohn described the film as a kind of “non-fiction science-fiction” film, and I think he does a passable job of conveying the feeling that Sao Paolo’s sinister landscape may soon seem very familiar to the rest of us.

But I’m still convinced that this is more an exercise in style than substance.

7/10(7/10)

The Big Sellout (Der Grosse Ausverkauf)

Published
by
James McNally
on April 27, 2007
in Documentaries, Film Festivals and Hot Docs
. 2 Comments

The Big Sellout (Der Grosse Ausverkauf)

The Big Sellout (Der Grosse Ausverkauf) (Director: Florian Opitz, Germany, 2006): Beautifully shot on film, The Big Sellout is yet another strong political documentary, this one on the theme of privatization. Since privatization is a keystone of neoliberal economic policy all over the world, the film takes us to several different locales to see its effects on real people. What we discover is that the effort by multinational corporations to turn the necessities of life (healthcare, electricity, even water) into commodities is having a devastating effect on the people of the developing world.

In the Philippines, Minda spends all of her time trying to scrape money together for dialysis treatments for her teenaged son. In South Africa, Bongani is part of a group of skilled activists who restore electrical service to those whose power has been cut off for non-payment. In Bolivia, Rosa is a grandmother who stood up to the faceless corporation that was attempting to privatize her city’s water supply. And in England, Simon the train driver details the breakup of British Rail and the decline of rail service in that country.

In every case, privatization was the culprit, but to be fair, Opitz attempts to engage with the economists at the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund who often impose privatization as a precondition for lending to developing nations. Surprisingly for the director, he gets very little cooperation from these shadowy bodies, who are ostensibly required to be transparent and accountable to their member nations. The one economist he does interview is Joseph Stiglitz, former Chief Economist of the World Bank who now disagrees with the rush to privatize everything, and who has become an opponent of most of the economic policies of globalization.

I was reminded when watching this film of several other strong anti-globalization documentaries of recent years, including The Take, The Corporation, and even The Yes Men. The Big Sellout adds some heartrending personal stories from several corners of the world, and it’s clear that privatization is really only helping those with too much money make even more of it. Without having to pay lip service to the democratic ideals of national governments, corporations are concerned with just one thing: the pursuit of profits. The profits may come, but the human costs should be tallied against them.

The only weakness in the film may be that I was left wondering what I could possibly do, in my comfortable First World life, to combat this creeping sickness. The film’s German web site has some educational materials, so I hope these get translated for the English site soon.

Here is the Q&A with producer Florian Opitz from after the screening:


Duration: 12:37

Official site for the film

9/10(9/10)

¿¡Revolución!?

Published
by
James McNally
on April 26, 2007
in Documentaries, Film Festivals and Hot Docs
. Closed

¿¡Revolución!?

¿¡Revolución!? (Director: Charles Gervais, Canada, 2007): A few years ago, I saw a documentary about Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez called The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. The filmmakers actually captured the events of a 48-hour-long coup in 2002, and I was riveted by the film and by the story of this small but oil-rich nation. Now Canadian director Charles Gervais has provided an update on how Chavez’s revolution is changing Venezuela.

In the earlier film, the opposition to Chavez seemed more organized and the situation on the ground more volatile. In the years since, there has been no further violence, the press has remained essentially free, and poor Venezuelans continue to benefit from generous programmes which have greatly improved health care and education.

The problem is that Chavez has continued to pick fights with the United States. He has blamed them for the 2002 coup and has hinted darkly that the U.S. is preparing a military invasion of his country to seize its oil reserves. In his efforts to break his country away from an unbalanced trade relationship, he has aligned himself with every anti-American government in the world, which seems patently unwise. But Chavez is a passionate man, and one gets the impression that he doesn’t often think too far ahead. His recent alliance with Iran’s smiling but hardline president Ahmadinejad seems especially dangerous.

Meanwhile, people on the streets seem to support him, with the caveat that no one wants to see him in power for 40 years like Castro. The opposition’s main jibe is that Chavez is importing his ideas from Cuba and exporting them all over Latin America. It is true that there has been a marked leftward swing in most of Latin America’s governments lately, and a few (Ecuador, Bolivia) have openly emulated Chavez’s platform. This is what irks the Americans the most, that they can no longer have the unfettered political influence in Latin America that they once had.

Gervais’ film uses an incident from 2005 as a philosophical starting point. In that year, Chavez gave away one million copies of Cervantes’ book Don Quixote, citing Quixote as the ultimate dreamer and man of action, a true revolutionary. Using brilliant animations and voiceover, the film uses Quixote to outline a ten-point plan for revolution, and then measures Venezuela’s progress. The last point is instructive: Becoming Expendable. It is here where are left at the end of the film. Chavez has done many great things for his country. But his personality cult is unsettling, and even some of his supporters seem worried that he’ll attempt to hang onto his power too long. It’s important to remember that Quixote was also seen as a fool by many people, and that some of his efforts caused more harm than good. Many revolutionary movements have stalled at this point, and it remains to be seen whether Venezuela can maintain its many successes without Chavez.

I approach Venezuela and Chavez from the same perspective as Gervais, as a hopeful sympathizer. His aims and achievements have been commendable; the man himself is a puzzle. The film seems to get the balance right, while communicating the passion and surprising political acumen of Venezuelan citizens from right across the socio-economic spectrum. Lively music and innovative use of animation and voiceover made this extremely polished film even more captivating.

Seville Pictures is distributing the film and it will receive a theatrical release on May 25th in Toronto (at the Royal Cinema). Watch for it.

UPDATE: I’ve now posted my own interview with director Charles Gervais when we spoke during Hot Docs.

Official site for the film

Q&A with director Charles Gervais from the Hot Docs site

8/10(8/10)

Without The King

Published
by
James McNally
on April 24, 2007
in Documentaries, Film Festivals and Hot Docs
. 8 Comments

Without The King

Without The King (Director: Michael Skolnik, USA, 2007): Swaziland has a population of just over a million people, and 42.6% of them are HIV positive, the highest infection rate in the world. In addition, more than half the population live on less than a dollar a day. Meanwhile, as the last functioning monarchy in Africa, the king and his many wives live in luxury oblivious to the suffering of their people.

Director Michael Skolnik, just 28 years of age, has known Swaziland’s King Mswati III since 1999. After taking a Zulu language class at UCLA and discovering that his teacher was an advisor to the king, he became interested in the Kingdom of Swaziland and its unique political situation. As the king got to know Michael’s work as a filmmaker better, he asked him to make a film about him. So this could very well have been called “About The King.”

Instead, when Skolnik spent time in the country, he discovered the grinding poverty, the soaring HIV rate, and the people’s simmering anger. Mswati’s father, King Sobhuza II, banned all political parties back in the 1970s, and the king appoints the prime minister, the cabinet, and a third of the members of the largely ineffectual parliament. Despite claiming to make his decisions based on consultation with “the people” and their representatives, King Mswati doesn’t really seem to know what’s going on outside his lavish palace. He acknowledges that when he goes out on ceremonial visits, he knows that officials clean things up and hide the reality from him. And yet, he seems to do nothing. In the interviews Skolnik conducted with him for the film, the king, not yet 40, seems affable but without much substance.

In contrast, his eldest daughter, Princess Sikhanyiso, introduces herself onscreen by performing a rap. At the age of 18, she is about to leave Swaziland to attend college in California, and at the beginning of the film, she seems spoiled and self-centred.

We also are introduced to several local political activists who speak candidly and at great risk about their frustration with the lack of democracy. A new constitution is approved but without any input from the people, and political parties are still banned. The situation seems to be escalating, and politicians’ offices are being bombed.

Meanwhile, with time away from her sheltered lifestyle, the princess begins to see some of the real problems facing her country. She repeats what many others do in the film, that the Swazi people don’t want to get rid of the monarchy, that it’s part of their culture. The film’s title comes from something she says: “Without the king, we have no culture.” However, at least for now, with the king they have no justice.

By the end of the film, she’s begun to grow up a little, and with her sister accompanies the film crew to one of the many AIDS orphanages in the country. She seems genuinely moved, and vows to make some needed changes. One wants to believe her.

The truth is that between AIDS, poverty, and a brewing rebellion, Swaziland could extinct itself within a generation. This film might actually make a difference. Not by shaming western audiences into more donations, though I’m sure that wouldn’t hurt, but because of the director’s intimate access to the royal family. When they see this film, they won’t be able to ignore the urgent needs of their country, willfully or otherwise.

For that reason, it doesn’t really matter what I think of the film. For the record, I’d say that it was a well-made but not necessarily innovative film. The use of mournful music over the scenes of poverty bothered me a little. But just because of the potential of the film to make a difference to an entire country, I’m grading it a little higher. Let’s hope the king agrees with me.

Here is the Q&A with director Michael Skolnik from after the screening:


Duration: 21:32

8/10(8/10)

UPDATE: The film was awarded the Special Jury Prize International Feature Documentary at the Hot Docs Awards ceremony held on April 27. Congratulations to director Michael Skolnik and everyone involved in the film.