The Story of Film-An Odyssey: Grade A

A

The Story of Film: An Odyssey (2011)

Narrator : Mark Cousins; Director : Mark Cousins.

This 15-hour documentary history of innovation in film was a television series in the U.K., and now, apparently is being distributed in cinemas more widely. I saw three hours of it at a recent film festival and was extremely impressed. When it comes out on DVD (presumably it will), I will snap it up immediately, and so should anyone who loves film.

The documentary begins over a hundred years ago with the early development of movies by the Lumiere brothers and others, continues through the silent era, into the modern era, and even projects what the future of movies will be thirty years from now. The whole history includes thousands of clips from movies around the world, while Cousins explains why each movie was important for understanding film as an art form. Viewing it gives you a new appreciation of movies.

What you get however is Mark Cousins’ particular point of view, which is not Hollywood-centric or necessarily oriented toward popular tastes or commercial interests. Nothing wrong with that. However, while he does focus on the artistic and technological aspects of filmmaking, there is something vaguely unsatisfying in the omission of the sociological meaning of movies, how they capture and affect the popular imagination and influence culture.

Furthermore, being an American, I am most interested in Hollywood movies, which Cousins does cover fairly, but not completely enough for my taste. Instead, he spends a great deal of time on movies from around the world, showing clips from really excellent movies I have never even heard of, much less seen. I had no concept of what African films look like in several countries, for example.

That world-film education enlarges my appreciation of the art form, yet such films have limited to zero distribution, negligible influence on modern mainstream filmmaking, and will probably never be seen by me or by most people. That doesn’t mean such films should not be highlighted, only that when choices have to be made, some of Cousins’ are idiosyncratic, to say the least.

On the other hand, his world-film survey does an excellent job noting important and influential films from Iran, China, Russia, India, Mexico, Korea, Japan, and elsewhere, films that have been distributed and seen widely and have been overtly influential, and yet are often overlooked by Western audiences. For that emphasis, Cousins is applauded.
Despite the reservations noted above, this history is so good, when it becomes available it will be a must-see for all film lovers and required viewing in all film schools.

Inside Job: Grade I

I (Incomplete)

Inside Job (2010)

Matt Damon (narrator); Co-writer and director, Charles Ferguson.

I had to give this documentary of the U.S. Financial collapse a rare “Incomplete” grade because I couldn’t finish watching it – not because of any fault of the film. It is excellent. But the material is still too fresh, too raw, for me to consider without getting seriously upset.

What I did see was measured, balanced and facts-based, but it told a very familiar, tragic story. Greedy, sociopathic big bankers raked in mountains of money through deception, lies, and criminal behavior, ruining the lives of many millions of Americans. They were aided and abetted by corrupt and stupid government officials, who, like the bankers, walked away free and fat, while everyone else suffered. I can’t bear to re-live that American tragedy yet. Maybe later.

Cave of Forgotten Dreams: Grade B

B

Cave of Forgotten Dreams (2010)

Werner Herzog, Dominique Baffier, Jean Clottes, Jean-Michel Geneste; Writer-Director Werner Herzog.

Iconic director Herzog somehow gained permission from the French government to film the painted walls inside the famous prehistoric Chauvet cave discovered in southern France in 1994. This 3D documentary is stunning as a technical achievement and because of the cave drawings themselves. The drawings and etchings on the cave walls were made by humans living at the end of the ice age, about 32,000 years ago. There are horses, reindeer, rhinoceroses, bear, lion, mammoth, bison, hyenas, and much else. It’s difficult to imagine that world, with all those animals living alongside humans in France at that time.

Some of the drawings, made with charcoal, are incredibly sophisticated and beautiful by any artistic standard. The 3-D effect gives you a compelling sense of place. In all, the headache is probably worth it, because this film is really about the artists who made the pictures, not the pictures themselves, so you want to have a feeling for the spatial layout of the cave, which the 3D gives.

On the down side, the tone of the documentary is academic but not very scientific, so the information given, mostly in Herzog’s voice-over, is mildly interesting but not too informative. There are interviews with scientists who show what the ancient humans wore, how they hunted, and how they played tunes on a tiny, carved ivory flute that was found in the region. But there is little scientific information about climate, diet, trade, migratory patterns, housing, ecology, and so on. There is not even much technical information about how the pictures were actually made.

Instead, Herzog shows a nearby heated biodome housing albino alligators and suggests that maybe they are not really alligators but ghosts, mere reflections of the real alligators, just as the cave paintings are reflections through time of a way of life we can no longer understand. That’s a stretch, but I indulge it, because he is Herzog. So even though I am grateful to glimpse inside the Chauvet cave (which is sealed up to avoid the kind of damage that occurred at Lascaux), I would have better enjoyed a proper scientific documentary, as opposed to this sentimental approach which tries to convey the eerie mystery of our prehistoric ancestors. Still, there’s no denying that the cave is mysterious, and the drawings are incredibly beautiful.

Good Hair: Grade A

A
Good Hair (2009)
Chris Rock. Director Jeff Stilson.

In this documentary, Rock explores the world of hair styling for African-American women. He interviews numerous prominent figures, from Kerry Washington to Maya Angelou (and even Al Sharpton), about why they use hair relaxer (sodium hydroxide, a nasty and toxic chemical) to straighten their hair, when they first started doing it, and how they feel about it.

There is also a section showing a huge chemical factory in Atlanta that produces such hair products and runs a beauty school for women to work with African-American hair. There is a brief trip to Chennai (Madras), India to investigate where human hair comes from for “weaves,” the hairpieces many women wear. There were a couple of interviews of black men who discussed what it was like to be with a woman whose hair you were never allowed to touch. The film ends with an annual, national black hair stylists convention, competition and trade fair, which is actually mostly theatrical spectacle and wholesale product promotion, and not much about hair styling, but it allows the film to end on a high note of color, music, and dancing.

I found the documentary completely fascinating, at times horrifying, and often funny. I felt a strong sense of racial divide, since white people are only vaguely aware of the black hair industry and what goes on. Of course it is obvious that movie stars and other entertainers straighten their hair and wear hairpieces. Anyone who was alive in the “afro ‘70s” remembers the original look. But for most of us, especially males, hair products and hair styling, are simply not topics worthy of much attention. Rock’s contribution is to focus attention on the magnitude of the black hair industry (billions of dollars annually), its exploitative nature (nearly all the black hair product companies are white-owned), the widespread extent of black hair straightening treatment, its high cost to individuals, its effect on children and on interpersonal relationships, and its health and safety risks.

These are all important topics that have remained outside the mainstream consciousness. Quite a few of the interviewees were visibly embarrassed to talk about hair treatments in the black culture, for reasons that are not entirely clear to me, but suggest some kind of racial tension.

Rock does not attempt to provide any answers. He does not ask, nor do interviewees say, why they feel it is necessary to straighten black hair, except “to be beautiful,” which of course begs the question, why is straight hair more “beautiful” than curly hair? I think we all know that answer to that question anyway. It is media (commercial) manipulation of the country’s norms and values and the failure of the education system to instill critical thinking skill. It’s the same manipulation that makes hemlines go up and down, cars to go in an out of fashion, and people believe that “fast food” is really food. That would be a different documentary, maybe one presented by Noam Chomsky. Rock found a compromise between the need to raise important issues of personal values and the need to entertain an audience with lightweight media fluff. In that regard, the documentary is a masterpiece.

Capitalism: A Love Story: Grade D

D
Capitalism: A Love Story
Michael Moore; Writer and director Michael Moore.

This latest offering from serial documentarian Moore considers the political and economic machinations that led to the financial collapse of 2008. He purports to be shocked and outraged that corporations are in business ONLY to make money, and that politicians are corrupt and hypocritical. Well, maybe those facts will be news to some people just recently arrived to America. Former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson was head of Goldman Sachs just before its government bailout? Who knew? Not Moore, apparently.

As for his explanation of capitalism, he is way out of his depth. He obviously has little education in economics. His “people before profits” message is shrill and totally one-sided. The film meanders from one diatribe to the next with without focus or purpose. On the plus side, Moore skillfully interweaves archival footage of business and political figures with contemporary interviews, often humorously, to highlight hypocrisy; and he excels as always in editing his interviews to make his subjects look stupid, malevolent or melodramatically heroic. So his considerable craft is evident. But as for content, there just isn’t any.

Not Quite Hollywood: Grade C

C
Not Quite Hollywood (2008)
Writer-Director Mark Hartley.

This is a documentary of Australian action and horror films of the 1970’s and 1980’s, few of which are known to a wide audience. Mel Gibson’s Mad Max is probably the best known example. They featured buckets of blood, naked breasts, and above all, high speed land and sea vehicles that ultimately explode.

Dozens of films are briefly reviewed with short clips and commentaries from the actors who appeared in them, their producers and directors, film critics, and Quentin Tarantino, who presents himself as some kind of an expert on the genre and who seems to want to elevate it to the level of the Spaghetti Western.

The films are interesting, especially in the first hour, but Tarantino’s comments are inane and obnoxious, telling us over and over how great these films were and how much he loves them. That is just not informative or helpful. However, the comments of the aging actors who appeared in them are often insightful. They include a few well-known actors such as Dennis Hopper, Jamie Lee Curtis, and George Lazenby, but mostly are unknown (to me) Aussies.

There are some worthwhile insights about the development of the Australian movie industry in general. After about an hour though, the whole project becomes repetitive and boring. How many exploding cars can you watch? It becomes apparent why the genre never transcended its roots.

The Future of Food (2004): Grade C

C
The Future of Food (2004)
Writer-Director Deborah Koons.

This obviously heartfelt documentary shows how large agricultural companies like Monsanto are force-feeding unlabelled, genetically modified food down our throats. They create special seeds through genetic engineering, patent them, then sue the socks off of any farmer who has any crops with their genetic signature, no matter if those seeds came onto the farm in the wind or by bird droppings. The agribusinesses own the farmer’s crops and it is against the law for the farmers to re-plant their own seeds once their fields are contaminated with GMO seeds. The film also documents government collusion in this takeover of American farming by giant seed and chemical companies, by stacking executive agencies like the EPA and the judiciary with “business-friendly” leaders. This sad story is well-told, but it is not a new story. Shows like this have been on TV for a long time (PBS at least). There is little or no new information here. The film is well-photographed, with good production values, but like a PBS-NOVA presentation, which it emulates, the material quickly becomes repetitive and boring. A feeble call to action is presented at the end: eat organic and buy local. Would that help? Maybe if you are rich. Organic produce usually costs at least double and often is of inferior quality. Maybe it is worth it though, to prevent Monsanto from taking over the world. But this documentary never does gen up a really rallying cry. It is strictly an “ain’t it awful?” presentation. Yeah, it’s awful, tragically awful, but Americans don’t seem to care. Maybe more call to action would have leavened the heavy fact-based presentation to better effect.

Harvard Beats Yale 29-29: Grade D

D
Harvard Beats Yale 29-29 (2008)
Various players who were on the teams; Director Kevin Rafferty

Unless you are an American football nut, you can skip this documentary about a college football game that happened forty years ago. The game is shown play-by-play, in unrestored television footage with washed out color, grainy images, and with the original announcer. Between plays, there are contemporary interviews with bloated old guys who were on the teams in 1968. They recall every play, every move, every nuance, like golfers after the round telling with deep emotion how their birdie putt lipped out on number eleven.

The documentary is competently made, but I am at a loss to understand why anyone would care about a forty year old college game. Was it a good game? Sure. Yale was ahead by ten points at the half but Harvard turned it around to tie the game. But again, so what?

I wonder what such contests would be like if there were no onlookers. The reminiscing old players talked repeatedly about the euphoria of being cheered. They say it was life-changing. How that could be, I cannot imagine. The game is a socially manufactured situation, entirely arbitrary, with nothing of consequence at stake. Certainly athletic contests measure a person’s skill and character in ways that go back thousands of years, and are worthy for that. But the game itself is not the point, the performance is. That is not how Earthlings see it, apparently.

The crowd’s excitement is just as mysterious. Noam Chomsky once remarked in an autobiographical comment: “I was watching the game when I suddenly wondered, why do I care if my team wins?” Exactly.

Religulous: Grade C

C
Religulous (2008)
Bill Maher. Director Larry Charles.

Comedian Maher travels the world, supposedly trying to understand how seemingly rational people can believe the incredible stories told them by religion, especially in Christianity. It’s a lot of fun to have Biblical stories reframed by him, such as hearing the Garden of Eden scene described as two naked people and a talking snake.

His wit is sharp but he aims it at easy targets, making him seem mean-spirited. He visits a roadside chapel for truckers and informs them that none of the apostles were eyewitnesses to Jesus’ life. They don’t believe him and some take offense. These are enormous, simple-minded guys in flannel shirts, uneducated, sincere, and well meaning. Maher’s intellectual challenges to their beliefs is all about him, not them.

He also interviews preachers, priests, ex-Mormons, and one scientist. Interviews are intercut with ironic news, movie, and commercial scenes, such as GW Bush explaining what God wants him to do. At the end of the film Maher goes pedantic and gives an unnecessary speech that reveals his lack of confidence in the effectiveness of the documentary.

Maher has some genuinely funny one-liners here and I love his style of humor, but the whole project seems juvenile. Of course religion is ridiculous; that much is clear to the most casual observer. Why not ask why it persists then; what psychological and social functions does it serve? A much better documentary on the absurdity of religion is Richard Dawkins’ Root of All Evil, although it is dead serious, only unintentionally funny. But perhaps Maher’s intended audience is children and young adolescents. For that group, this movie might be enlightening.

Man on Wire: Grade B

B
Man on Wire (2008)
Philippe Petit. Director James Marsh

In 1974, Philippe Petit strung a tightrope between the two towers of the World Trade Center in New York City then walked out into the void. He spent 45 minutes out there, a quarter mile above the traffic, dancing, twirling, showing off. It was a worldwide news incident, as intended. When he finally came in, police snatched him up. He was charged with trespassing.

This documentary tells the story with some background from his youth and reports on his earlier wire-walks between the towers of Notre Dame and the towers of a bridge in Sydney. The story is told in convincing reenactments, archival news footage, and interviews with Petit and the friends who helped him. The story is only slightly interesting, though photography, editing and directing are excellent. Philippe is charming, as is his French-accented English. I would have liked a lot more information about the technical and financial aspects of the stunt. How is the wire made and anchored? What kind of slippers does he wear? Where does he fix his eyes while walking? What does he think about? How is the balance pole used? Who paid for all the equipment and airline flights? None of these questions is addressed. What's left is a report of an inconsequential media stunt from three decades ago.

At first, I wondered what kind of a nut Petit was. He would have made an excellent terrorist. But in the DVD extra interview with him, I became convinced that he is a genuine performance artist, deranged only to the extent any great artist must be. It might have been a better film to frame it more clearly as an inquiry into the soul of an artist rather than as a news report. But it is an engaging worthwhile hour of viewing.

Shine a Light: Grade B

B
Shine a Light (2008)
Rolling Stones; Martin Scorcese. Director Martin Scorcese

As concert films go, this one is cinematically excellent. It captures the Stones on their “Bigger Bang” tour and displays the Stones’ shtick. If you’re a Stones fan, you’ll like the music. I found it disappointing. Mick and the boys simply do not have the vocal talent of long-ago youth. Tunes are highly compressed in tonal range, the voices used more as rhythm instruments now. The music is a mere shadow of its former greatness. Mick struts and prances with elbows above his shoulders, pretty amazing for a 60 year old dude. But what lifts the film above average is the beautiful photography, directing, and editing. It demonstrates again that Scorcese is a master. Comparisons to The Last Waltz (1978) are inevitable. This one doesn’t even come close in terms of musical content and entertainment value. This is about Scorcese and his extremely high level of skill in making a concert film. The content is merely so-so.

Heckler: Grade C

C
Heckler (2007)
Jamie Kennedy, Bill Maher, Arsenio Hall, Louie Anderson, Leonard Maltin, Howie Mandel, & many others. Director Michael Addis.

In this documentary, comedic actor and television producer Jamie Kennedy interviews stand-ups about hecklers in the audience: how they feel about them and how they handle them. There are some film clips showing disruptive hecklers, but mostly it is the comics talking, and they uniformly despise hecklers, considering them no more than drunken baboons. But surprisingly, most comics also seem genuinely disturbed by them, even if they handle the situation well with a snappy retort or by calling security. Bill Maher explains, you need a thin skin to be a good comic.

Most of the movie, however, is given over to criticism of film critics, who are lumped into the same category as performance hecklers, which is an error. There are some funny bits as Kennedy confronts some critics of his own work “Why do you hate me, man?” Some critics are only vicious egotists, true, but Kennedy does not have a clue about the social function of a critic, which would imply that he also has little understanding of the social function of performer.

The critic translates artistic expression into propositions that can be discussed. That articulation does deprive the artistic product of its pristine facticity, but in exchange, embellishes its communicative power. A stone, even a jewel, does not mean as much as it can until somebody comments on it.

The documentary did not get to the bottom of the heckler phenomenon either. Most hecklers probably are drunken baboons, but that is not enough of an explanation. They are also commenting (inarticulately) on the artificiality of the standup format: you (the comic) act personal, folksy, and intersubjective with me to get a laugh (at my expense) but I am excluded from the conversation. I heckle to be included. Kennedy produced this film, so in a small way, he may be trying to close the circle of that conversation, but if so, he should have spent more time interviewing hecklers and critics and less time whining. Despite its internal conflicts, the documentary has a few laughs and can be thought-provoking.

A Lawyer Walks Into A Bar: Grade F

F
A Lawyer Walks Into A Bar (2007)
Six law students in California, plus some commentators. Director Eric Chaikin.

This documentary follows six law students for a few months as they study for the California Bar exam, one of the toughest in the country. They range from recent graduates to a middle-aged man who has already failed the exam 41 times. The candidates tell why they want to pass (to get a law license, of course!), and about the pressure on them to pass, their personal anxieties, and so on. We don’t get to know much about any of them, or care about them. Artificial suspense is built as they wring their hands over how important it is for them to pass. In the end, some pass and some don’t, just as you would expect. I learned nothing from this movie. It is promoted as “a witty, seriocomic look at the American legal process.” It isn’t. Reviewers rave, “Edge of my seat,” “Impressive,” Gut-wrenching,” “Hilarious,” and “a film that every prospective lawyer should see.” I disagree with all those comments. The film is boring and uninformative. I’m sure every law student in California and in the whole USA understands that they must pass a bar exam and that not everybody does pass. The film does not seriously explore the American legal system, the legal educational system, the bar exam, or anything else, and despite the great title, the movie is not funny. A documentary on legal education could be fascinating, but this one isn’t.

Sicko: Grade B

B
Sicko (2007)
Michael Moore

Progressive activist and documentarian Michael Moore promotes socialized medicine as the sensible alternative to America’s shameful health care problem. There are 45 million Americans without any health insurance. And even if you have health insurance, you may not really have health insurance, since private for-profit companies are motivated to deny your claim. But this documentary gives few statistics. Instead, in his inimical style, Moore pushes a camera into someone’s face so we can watch them cry over the death of their loved one whose insurance claim was denied. Interviews with insurance company people whose job it was to simply deny claims are revealing, but not necessarily representative. Interviews with people in Canada, U.K., and France make the case that when the government pays for “free” health care for all, the quality is good and people are satisfied, if not deeply grateful. Are those widespread beliefs? We don't know. Moore’s technique of selected personal interviews combined with publicity stunts is humanly interesting but deceptive because it suggests that it is presenting an intellectual argument when in fact it is just one long sequence of rhetorical fallacies appealing to emotion and personal remarks, proving nothing. As a documentary film, it has shock value and human interest, but even though I happen to agree with its point of view, I did not find it persuasive.

Moore asks, why doesn't the American government pay for “free” health care for all? His answer is that Americans have an irrational, knee-jerk reflex against socialism of any kind. It is a step on the slippery slope to communism and tyranny. He tries feebly to counteract that fear, noting that public schools are paid by the government and free for all, yet they haven’t gone communist. Police and firefighters represent socialism in action. Highways are free for all – more socialism at work. But these analogies are not going to persuade anyone. If he wanted to explain why America doesn’t have universal coverage, he could look at comparative tax laws. America doesn't have universal coverage because we don’t want to pay for it. It’s a culture that valorizes individualism, not collectivism. Whether that’s good or bad depends on your point of view.

I would have preferred a presentation of properly sampled facts about health coverage, but that would not get the attention that this film has. I give Moore credit for raising the issue and hopefully, getting people to talk about it. The film could be quite useful for high school and college discussions.