I just got back from two amazing daze relaxing in mud, hot water and bed up in Calistoga, CA. More on that at another time…unfortunately we came back to some very sad news…
You see, I was born and raised in the San Francisco Bay Area and as a kid in the 1970s every Saturday night my friends and I would watch our local horror host, Bob Wilkins, on channel 2. He’d play films like “Night of the Living Dead” (George Romero’s original zombie flick) to ‘cheese-factor 11′ flicks like “Attack of the Mushroom People.” However at the ripe old age of 8 much of the cheesy films were scary to us. Bob would also have local crazies on his show as well as Hollywood stars. One such “crazy” was a friend’s mom who had actually knitted a sweater for King Kong. No joke! This thing was huge. Anyway, that’s the kind of out of the ordinary, regular folk, Bob would feature on his show. He did things with a straight, dry wit, a strong sense of humor and even though he wasn’t a horror fan himself he did everything with the utmost respect for the genre. It was a very unique mix among horror hosts and one that has lived in the memories of all of us who grew up watching him.
During the past decade Bob would show up at horror and comic conventions and special movie screenings. It was a treat to actually meet him after all this time. Bob started suffering from Alzheimer’s and it got progressively worse (as it does). Anyway, he passed away yesterday…while I am glad he is no longer suffering it is very sad to know that he is no longer physically on this earth. Rest in peace, Bob. Even though we didn’t personally know each other you have always had a special place in my heart and were the one who kept me a horror fan. Cheers, buddy…
The topic of filmmaker Michael Moore always seems to be a somewhat heated one. Why? I think it’s because many don’t know how to categorize him. Is he a documentary filmmaker or is he a muckraker? I would say both but with a heavy emphasis on the latter. He sensationalizes, often reports in a “tabloid style”, and in some cases fabricates scenes in order to make a point. I love the guy for this because I think he’s really good at it and his points are righteous. But where he runs into trouble is when this style is called documentary. It’s clearly not “pure” documentary. Yes they share some similarities but they are quite different (e.g. the 3 points above). Anyway, that’s my two cents on that…but here’s Mr. Moore on “Larry King Live” making some great points on the proposed auto makers bailout.
A close friend and colleague of mine is having his first film screening in New York September 20. The film is called “Uprooted” and closely follows a family as it looks at the story of forced displacement of Afro-Colombians in the country of Colombia. It’s a gorgeously shot film and equal parts tear-jerking and hopeful. I strongly encourage you to see it. For more on the film and screening dates, do visit the film’s site: www.uprootedthemovie.org. It will also be screening at the San Francisco Latino Film Festival in November 2008.
The documentary film “The Bridge” is just begging to be criticized (this may be exactly what the director counted on but it’s hard to tell just where this guy is coming from). The film is about suicide and those that choose San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge as their point of departure. In interviews, the film maker speaks about mixing the beauty of the bridge with the darkness of suicide and such discussions – that’s all fine and well. But what is contentious is the fact that there was a group of camera men and women who sat around the bridge filming in hopes of catching the exact moment when someone jumps {why?}. Considering that jumping from the Golden Gate Brdige is an all too common event it’s kind of like shooting the proverbial fish in a barrel. In this case though you just have to have the perciverance and time. {what value does this capture add to such a film?}
In watching the special features included on the DVD, the people behind the cameras remark that they had cell phones programmed and walkie talkies ready and would immediately call bridge authorities when a jump occurred {uh, but isn’t that a little late}. Did they ever call when they “thought” a jump would occur? That isn’t clear. What is confusing is that they say that they didn’t ever know when a person would jump {this was their kind of ‘defense’} AND that “you could just tell.” My question is, if you could just tell then why not “just call” before the actual jump? Even if you are wrong what’s the harm – obviously, no movie (at least as the director sees it). Is this not taking cinema verite (fly on the wall style) to an extreme limit {beyond limit}? And do you really need to capture someone jumping to make this a compelling story? I personally don’t think that it adds any more than if they had filmed some actors standing around the bridge in comteplative moods (that’s essentially what much of the film is and the most dramatic footage…not the actual jumping).
I never felt any attachment to the subjects and so the film always feels “distant.” One might say that a person would have trouble relating because many of the subjects have some sharp mental disabilities and can therefore be capable of anything. But I don’t think so. I feel like the director took a conscious path about how his movie would be made and it is this path that will keep it from truly being succesful.
While overall the film lacks integrity there are some very strong statements made by a couple of the friends and family members of people who died in the film. The father of one of the bridge’s vitctims is especially compelling. But does that and some pretty cinematography justify the selfish style in which the film was made? I don’t think so…
One of my cohorts is doing a movie on the displacement of black Colombians and I have to say I am stoked to see this thing finished. All the pieces he shows are fucking awesome!!! Really, this is GREAT stuff. To boot he’s got a great sound track. For example, check out Flaco Flow!!!!
After watching a few hours of different documentary films on HIV/AIDS I needed a break and what better way then to watch a lot of healthy, naked bodies gathering and challenging public space and drawing attention to issues of body image and censorship (among other issues). You’ve probably seen the work of Tunick (Spencer Tunick) online but he’s the photographer who takes images of interesting public spaces with 100s and sometimes thousands of naked bodies blanketed over the landscape. These places are typically urban and work to challenge how we see nudity and more importantly, how we see ourselves. It’s easy to look at nudity and think “porn” in American culture but this ain’t porn…Anyway, it’s a nice documentary to check out if you want something easy on the eyes and not too deep, yet has some social value. Check it out here.
The folks over at GreenCine.com have a nice little section called “Documentaries Under $8″ that you might want to check out. There are a few selections that are definitely a nice find for that price (e.g. “Chisholm 72: Unbought and Unbossed,” “Election 2000,” “Mumia Abu-Jamal: A Case for Reasonable Doubt?” and others. You can see the whole selection by clicking here…I think I remember posting this before but a good price is worth a reminder
This is a fun film to watch as you get to tag along with the filmmakers in a devious act as they hire private investigators to track down the identities of the MPAA’s highly guarded secret groups, 1) the raters (those individuals who “slap” movies with arbitrary ratings); 2) the appeals board (those super-secret-people whose job it is to act as judge and jury of your appeal to get a lower rating — for example, you might show a 1.5 second flash of a women’s pubic hair in your film and they gave you a NC-17 (aka “X”) rating but you disagree with their call as come on, it’s not like the actress in question is spread eagle at the dinner table with a speculum inserted as the family sits down to “dinner”…guess who is behind this do-gooder group?!!!
“This Film…” shows the MPAA to be present mainly to protect the dominance and control of big movie companies. Secondarily, they function as the moral gatekeepers for the minority class of reactionary America. But we already could figure this out, however, the film does a fairly good job in showing exactly how this works and looks like. “This Film….” exposes the MPAA’s self-justification for existence as the smoke and mirrors it is. All is exposed as the names and faces of the secret cabal of MPAA movie raters and “judges” (aka the Appeals Board) all of whose identities are hidden because the MPAA don’t want them to be influenced by “negative” forces. Or is it because then they could stand to lose their Wizard of Oz like power?
One of the best moments is when the MPAA, a HUGE force behind the whole “making a copy of a movie is piracy and evil” frenzy, actually makes an unauthorized copy of a movie! They say it’s okay because the copy is safely held in a vault. Hear that kiddies? If you have ever made an “illegal” copy of a movie just throw it in a “vault” and you are no longer a danger to society! Yaaaaaaa! Anyway, the film is good piece of investigative reporting style documentary work with a clear message.
![[Valid RSS]](http://www.hellasolutions.com/images/valid-rss-rogers.png "Validate my RSS feed")