Tag: Documentary

AMERICAN CHAOS – Review

Left to right: James D. Stern, John Ladd, JoBeth Ladd, Peggy Davis, Fred Davis, in the documentary AMERICAN CHAOS. Photo by Kevin Ford, Courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics (c)

As someone who grew up in Chicago, filmmaker James D. Stern was puzzled by the rise of Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign. But then he did something few people in “blue states” might do: he set out to listen to ordinary Trump supporters in “red states” – not to argue with them, just to listen – to find out why they supported him. The resulting documentary, AMERICAN CHAOS, offers fascinating and unexpected insights on why ordinary people voted for Trump.

The documentary AMERICAN CHAOS starts with footage of Presidential political campaigns, beginning with Teddy Roosevelt in the early 20th century. Black and white images give way to color as we recap every president’s campaign since, up to Donald Trump. However, it is the 2016 Trump campaign that is the documentary’s real focus. Scratch that – it is the Trump voters that are the focus. The campaign and the candidate are merely background.

This is a film that people on either side of the political divide could learn from. Six months before the 2016 election, Stern, a Chicago-raised Democrat, hit the road to find out why voters in “red states” were supporting Donald Trump. Among other things, the documentary details attitudes and assumptions on both sides that get in the way of communication across the divide. By taking a grass-roots and non-confrontational approach, Stern uncovers answers that will surprise many and aspects of why people voted for Trump in the 2016 election that have not been well-covered in partisan media.

The opening footage reminds us that there are some things that are the same in every presidential campaign: the crowds eager to see and hear the candidate, the speeches before the crowds, the handshakes and travel. But somethings are different, sometimes radically different.

Candidate Donald Trump certainly was different. As one speaker in the documentary notes, Trump was unique as a presidential candidate: a 70-year-old man with no government experience, no military experience, and who had never done anything in the way of public service. “They compare him to Ronald Reagan but Reagan had been governor of California for eight years,” he notes. That lack of experience shocked Democrats and some Republicans, but was a major appeal to voter of the Tea Party stripe.

Stern gives a quick run-down of how Trump looked to Democrats and their confusion about his appeal. Frustrated by the lack of insight given by listening to either right or left-leaning media, he decided to go straight to the source, Trump supporters, for answers. So he hit the road.

Stern’s road trip took him to Florida, home to Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate and Cuban-American communities, Cleveland during the Republican convention, West Virginia coal country and Arizona near the border. It is not just “red states” Stern visits, but particularly rural areas, where he seeks out grassroots activists and local elected officials rather than the big names, as well as some ordinary voters.

In West Virginia, he visits with modern-day descendants of the Hatfields and McCoys, and finds the feuding families are now friends and business partners. As always, Stern listens and asks questions, rather than giving his views, and you feel a real human connection between him and the people he interviews, something you may not expect.

On camera, Stern interviews people who who hold a variety of views but all support Trump. Some of those views are familiar from Fox News and social media, and Stern spends some time on the issue of people’s sources of information, particularly the role of social media. What had once been whisper campaigns and word-of-mouth rumors with limited reach could now spread much further through social media.

Stern touches on a number of issues and topics, offering information on the differing views between right and left, but does not dwell on ones most familiar, like abortion. The documentary’s most intriguing insights are the ones that get away from those well-worn discussions.

Time and again, the Trump supporters talk about three themes: jobs, immigration and Hillary Clinton.

Stern’s questions about why people supported Trump very often led to a litany of complaints about Hillary Clinton. Justified or not, the concerns and the dislike were real and palpable. Another theme was economic decline and lack of jobs. In West Virginia, the decline of the coal industry left small town empty, but similar impacts could be seen in any rural or manufacturing area. There was a sense of grasping at straws, and perhaps a businessman, even one with Trump’s rocky record, might have some answers. The immigration issue was covered in several places. In Florida, Cuban-Americans complain about how they followed the rules and came legally and newer arrivals aren’t. In Arizona, a couple of ranchers with property along the border paint a different picture of border issues than those who don’t live there may have.

Occasionally, Stern lets people with opposing views, left or right, speak but allows each group to speak freely on their own terms instead of setting up confrontations or debates. It is a far more informative and useful approach, even if you don’t agree with what they say. Not everything people say, left or right, are nice. A few rural people express views that sound xenophobic or racist, but other people in big cities express views that show a lack of comprehension and even dismissive of other opinions. But the range of views helps Stern present a fuller picture of the state of the country.

The documentary does not really focus on the campaign, except as background and a timeline for the feelings of voters. It spends little time on the other Republican candidates and does not even mention Bernie Sanders, and keeps the focus on the Trump campaign and occasionally Clinton. Even there, it does little more than mark milestones, like the Access Hollywood tapes, securing the nomination, the debates, and other points. The documentary follows events though the election and up to inauguration.

No matter your political leanings, AMERICAN CHAOS offers fascinating insights on Trump’s appeal and what that might mean for our divided country.

SCOTTY AND THE SECRET HISTORY OF HOLLYWOOD – Review

As the Summer cinema season gives way to the Fall, yet another compelling feature documentary joins a most impressive 2018 roster. And as with several earlier releases, it is part of the show biz sub-genre of docs. It’s main focus (and marketing draw) is an insider look into the “golden age” of studio movies, though close to its waning days after the end of WWII and into the mid-fifties, when television began to chip away at their luster. But this is no flowery puff profile waxing nostalgic about those glory days of iconic “larger than life” movie stars. That’s because many of them had to “act” all the time, in and out of the sound stages, carefully evading any hint of scandal. We saw a bit of this is the fictionalized story of a studio “fixer” a couple years ago in the Coen Brothers’ HAIL CAESAR. This is the unvarnished “real deal” from, not a fixer, but an “arranger”, a man, now in his 90’s, who’s “spilling the beans” and naming names. Be prepared, all you TCM (Turner Classic Movies) fans, brace yourself, here comes SCOTTY AND THE SECRET HISTORY OF HOLLYWOOD.

The title name is the affectionate moniker of Scott Bowers, a spry, beloved senior citizen still working as a private party bartender in the Los Angeles area. But mixologist was not always his main profession. As the film begins, he’s promoting the paperback release of his scandalous “tell all” memoir “Full Service”. And what is he telling? After serving as a Marine in World War II, Scott decided that he would not return to his hometown of Ottawa, Illinois. Instead he went from combat in the Pacific to a job on the Pacific Coast, specifically working as a “grease monkey” at a Richfield Oil gas station in a prime location on Hollywood Boulevard right across from the entrance gate to a big movie studio. The handsome young vet soon caught the eye of a closeted screen actor, who invited him to “cool off” at his private swimming pool. It wasn’t long before pumping gas became Scotty’s “cover job”. He was the paid paramour of stars of both genders. The station itself was a meeting place for the “discreet elite”, with its restrooms an “action hot spot”. And when Scotty became too “busy” he recruited several of his old service pals who he sent out on “jobs” (of course Scotty got a “taste”). And somehow he avoided scandal, though Confidential magazine did allude to perhaps his most astounding escapade (Ava and Lana, together). As the film studio system faded in the early sixties, still rugged Scotty became a property manager for a lover who later willed his houses to him. The film makers follow Scotty on his daily routines to these houses, along with side trips to visit with former members of his stable. And as he remembers those wild times, we learn how Scotty has somewhat settled down, enjoying a decades long marriage to cabaret singer Lois, who doesn’t really care about her hubby’s notorious past (“What Scotty did before I met him doesn’t matter”). As yet another birthday nears, Scotty must come to terms with his mortality while riding high on a new wave of fame and controversy.

In addition to being part of the “Show biz” feature documentary sub-genre, SCOTTY is part of another select group: the doc that starts its focus on one thing or direction, then changes course during the filming (often due to outside influences). For example, THE QUEEN OF VERSAILLES started as a loose kitchy comic look at the tacky plans of a too wealthy family then turned into a dark tale of greed and a family straining under a financial crisis. WEINER was to be an “underdog” political comeback tale of triumph, until the title subject’s moral weaknesses led to disaster. In this film’s bouncy first half hour or so, director Matt Tyrnauer presents us with a charming hustler who’s not slowing down when others are shuffling to the rockin’ chair. He delights in lifting the veil on the rose-colored views of the past, while Tranauer punches up these tales with fast-cutting photo and film montages. As we see those golden icons flash past we gasp, “Her? Him? I never thought! He was really..?” as Scotty goes against the grain of his “greatest generation” by denouncing old taboos and scandals. It’s fun to revisit his partners in play, who seem to grow more youthful with each spicy anecdote. Then comes the dark detour. As Tyrnauer tags along with Scotty on his daily rounds it becomes obvious that this free spirit is now a prisoner of a common compulsion: hoarding. Scotty slows as he sees a toliet near an alley trash pick-up (“The wife would throw a fit, but…it’s in pretty good shape”). Then at the garages, we see his boxes and tubs nearly collapse upon him as he opens the door making the old radio shows gags about Fibber McGee’s overstuffed closet lose their levity. This spills into his home , leaving the couple only two or three places to sit while exterior repairs are ignored. We’re then treated to the parts of Scotty’s mind that aren’t so bubbly and joyous. He’s still haunted by the losses of his first wife and his big brother. In this time of “MeToo” and clergy abuse headlines, Scotty’s belief that his coupling with several priests was not a bad thing (“I knew what I was doin’. I was in control.”) will make your head spin. In the last scenes we see that Scotty is fighting his own mortality, thinking that the years won’t slow him down. In one of the cinema year’s most nail-biting sequences (equaling any Tom Cruise stunt in the newest MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE), the ninety-something subject climbs a rickety ladder to walk about a roof (two or three stories up) and inspect the shingles (I imagine audiences muttering “Get off there” in hushed tones). Yes, the breezy “tinsel-town” tales of SCOTTY AND THE SECRET HISTORY OF HOLLYWOOD are fun, but it’s the story of how one man comes to terms with his last days that will resonate much longer.

4 Out of 5

SCOTTY AND THE SECRET HISTORY OF HOLLYWOOD opens everywhere and screens exclusively in the St. Louis area at Landmark’s Plaza Frontenac Cinemas

DARK MONEY – Review

Investigative journalist John S. Adams in the Montana Capitol building, in a scene from the documentary DARK MONEY, a PBS Distribution release.

Director Kimberly Reed’s documentary DARK MONEY is a cautionary tale on the risks to a democratic republic from hidden money funding political campaign ads. This engrossing documentary is a chilling but fascinating look at the way money from secret out-of-state and even foreign government sources can be used to influence or disrupt state-level political races in this country, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. To illustrate the issue, Reed focuses a state legislature race in Montana as an example, where out-of-state organizations use dark money to fund an effort to gain control of its legislature and direct public policy for those special interests.

Montana is a good example, as a conservative state that is traditionally Republican but which has both an independent streak and a tradition of grassroots community in politics. Although the specific example is Montana, it it is a clear illustration of the power of unlimited hidden money to influence local elections in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, a cautionary tale for other states also being targeted for similar efforts. Recently in Missouri, when the “right-to-work” proposition, Prop A, was on the ballot, pro-“right-to-work” political mailers and ads appeared on local television and in mailboxes, a campaign funded by one of the groups featured in this documentary, Americans for Prosperity, a “dark money” organization founded by one of the Koch brothers and Karl Rove.

Montana, as the documentary points out, is unique in some ways. Montana has low population but abundant natural resources. The state has had lots of experience with outside interests trying to control and exploit their resources, and then leaving residents of the state to clean up or live with the consequences or mess. That history has made Montanans both more wary, and skilled, in dealing with outsider corporations and individuals. The state also has a history of citizen politicians, who hold jobs besides their political ones and stay part of the community, as well as their tradition of community involvement.

As the documentary notes, this is not a Democrats versus Republicans fight, or conservative versus liberals, but a battle for local control of elections and public policy. Voters on both sides of the political aisle have railed against political ads funded by “out-of-state” interests. In this documentary, the Republican party is the target of this well-funded “dark money” effort to direct public policy in Montana on which Reed’s documentary focuses. One particular state senate race gets a lot of attention, but the documentary extends its focus to include other examples within the state and the national picture.

The key to this is dark money, the money funneled through non-profit 501c4 organizations that are not required to disclose their donors. “Follow the money” is an old phrase in newspapers but dark money thwarts the public’s right to know.  It prevents the public from finding out who is funding public efforts like direct mailings or political ads, information that can reveal motivations behind those political or public policy efforts, and who benefits from them. Legally, these campaigns are not supposed to coordinate with the politicians’ campaign, but the use of multiple organizations funded by dark money’s hidden donors can mask that coordination.

Director Kimberly Reed follows the story from multiple viewpoints, including journalists covering the Montana capital, various Republican citizen politicians, and the tiny Montana government agency tasked with overseeing their elections.

We also hear from a former member of the Federal Election Commission, the FEC, the national organization that is supposed enforce election laws, which reveals that lack of oversight is a national problem, and one spanning more than one presidential administration or party. The documentary takes a look at how 501c4 organizations through which dark money is funneled, such as Western Tradition Partnership, also known as American Tradition Partnership, and the National Right to Work campaign, which aims to get rid of unions. As one speaker notes, organizations like these aim to influence the outcome of elections because it “doesn’t want to lobby them (politicians) – it wants to own them right from the beginning.”

Reed does a masterful job pulling this all together, letting the people in Montana speak, and allowing the audience to draw their own conclusions about the national problem. Anyone who values democracy in this country should take a look at this revealing documentary.

RATING: 4 out of 5 stars

GENERATION WEALTH – Review

Limo Bob, 49, the self-proclaimed “Limo King,” Chicago, 2008. An entrepreneur who builds and rents exotic limousines, Bob wears thirty-three pounds of gold and a full-length fur coat given to him by Mike Tyson. Photo Courtesy of Amazon Studios. Photo credit: © Lauren Greenfield, all rights reserved.

GENERATION WEALTH sounds like it’s about income inequality and the One Percent, but it is not.

While Lauren Greenfield’s documentary starts out with footage of the very rich who are the one-percent of the income scale, it quickly shifts.

Even tagline of Lauren Greenfield’s documentary “The American Dream just keeps getting more expensive” suggests that, but while the documentary does start out with footage of the very rich who at in the upper one-percent of the income scale, it quickly shifts to a different, less lofty picture of wealth, a Kardashians, reality show kind of rich. The film would have been better titled “Generation Excess” as excess is the real subject.

Frankly, the documentary is like a recap of Greenfield’s other films. The documentarian’s works include THE QUEEN OF VERSAILLES, about the couple building a replica of Versailles in Florida until the 2008 economic crash bankrupted them, THIN, about anorexia, KIDS+MONEY, about the children of the rich. Wealth is a theme here, but it is about the once-wealthy, the wanna-be wealthy, and disease linked to wealthy nations. It is not about the today’s truly wealthy, which is a missed opportunity.

The documentary bathes us in a ocean of excess in the pursuit of either wealth or some popular culture image of perfection. We meet a woman, a school bus driver, whose obsession with plastic surgery bankrupts her and costs her her children, the children of rock stars and movie stars raised with privilege but struggling to get by as adults, a one-time millionaire now hiding out in Europe to avoid jail time, a porn star who was one of Charlie Sheen’s girlfriends, a limo driver who proudly wears pounds of gold jewelry given him by wealth clients. There are the sad young women with anorexia but then the little toddler beauty queens.

After wallowing in this depressing pop culture swamp, one might just want a bath. Instead, the director offers social commentary on the decay of the idea of the American Dream, from an ideal of being a respected pillar of one’s community to being a bling-wearing media figure, from “keeping up with the Joneses” to “Keeping Up with the Kardashians.” Greenfield notes that this change began in the ’70s with conspicuous consumption and was solidified in the ’80s when “greed” became “good.” But it really took off with the reality shows of the ’90s.

Yet GENERATION WEALTH does have one more interesting side. While this rambling documentary covers a number of topics that are only marginally connected, it also reveals details of the filmmaker’s own upbringing and background, which speaks volumes about the documentarian and her work. The daughter of an anthropologist and a successful doctor, Greenfield attending an exclusive Southern California private school where her classmates were the children of movie stars and other wealth parents, the very people in the documentary. Greenfield’s anthropologist mother spent long periods of time away from her family, a pattern Greenfield repeated in pursuit of her career. Greenfield often left her young children in the care of her supportive husband, something successful men have done with their supportive wives for generations. This insight on Greenfield and her own family are by far the more engrossing parts of the documentary.

Those who can’t get enough reality-show outrageous-ness might enjoy this tour of the underbelly of fame and fortune. GENERATION WEALTH has a misleading title and it is mostly a recap of Greenfield’s previous documentaries, like a rock band’s “greatest hits” album. It is mostly worth seeing for the insights it offers into what makes this filmmaker tick.

GENERATION WEALTH opens Friday, August 10, at Plaza Frontenac Cinema.

RATING: 2 out of 5 stars

MCQUEEN – Review

Models ready for an Alexander McQueen fashion show. Photographer: Ann Ray. Courtesy of Bleecker Street.

For a documentary titled MCQUEEN, a question quickly springs to mind: which one? Steve McQueen, the iconic actor? Steve McQueen, the British director? Or Alexander McQueen, the British fashion designer? Turns out, it is the latter.

Fashionistas will instantly think of Alexander McQueen, of course, but given that there are so many famous McQueens, maybe this single-name title was not the best choice. Fans of the ’60s-’70s actor who plunk down money for tickets are in for a real surprise.

But with that quibble out of the way, MCQUEEN is a good documentary about the rise and fall of a fashion original, Lee Alexander McQueen, a rebel with a cause who shook up the fashion world. McQueen didn’t look like the stereotype of a fashion designer, a slightly chubby young man who looked a bit like James Cordon, born into a working-class family. The son of a London cab driver, McQueen had a biting and raunchy sense of humor but he had a gift for cutting clothes, a strong work-ethic and drive to succeed. He changed ideas about who could be a designer while creating striking and very personal fashion collections.

All this is outlined in the documentary, co-directed by Ian Bonhôte and Peter Ettedgui. MCQUEEN is divided into chapters named for the designer’s fashion shows or themes in his career and life, which were tightly linked. Each chapter is introduced with a skull decorated in fit the fashion show and collection’s theme, a symbol McQueen used for each collection. It is a eerie choice, given the designer’s troubled life and early death.

McQueen was an indifferent student and after graduating, took a job as an assistant to a bespoke tailor. The job revealed a gift for the work but the restless, ambitious young man kept trading up to work for better companies, including an Italian design house. Returning to London, he went to the London School of Art to study fashion, with the help of an adult. An early benefactor suggested he drop his first name and go by Alexander McQueen professionally.

The film covers both McQueen’s professional and personal lives together. McQueen used his fashion shows as self-expression, becoming more theatrical and more like performance art than just fashion shows as his career progressed. His work was usually outrageous and often controversial, and even sometimes offensive. Personally, he was always close to his family, particularly his mother and older sister, but as a gay man, had difficulty with romantic relationships.

Using footage of his elaborate fashion shows, media coverage, and interviews with colleagues, friends and family, MCQUEEN paints a well-rounded portrait of the artist and his work and, ultimately, his tragic death by suicide. It offers a compelling look into the striking career and tormented life of a groundbreaking fashion leader.

MCQUEEN opens Friday, August 10, at Plaza Frontenac Cinema.

RATING: 3 out of 5 stars

FAR FROM THE TREE – Review

As the Summer movie season winds down, one type of film not usually known for hitting theatres this time of year seems to be finding an appreciative and big audience. Of course the major box office news has been dominated by action films, particularly the superhero flicks from AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR to INCREDIBLES 2. That’s really no big shock. But another surprise story of these warm months is the respectable (for these low budgets) grosses of several documentary feature films. Sure some of the bigger hits focus on entertainment figures like Fred Rogers and Whitney Huston, but a few have caused a stir over their compelling family stories, like the heart-wrenching THREE IDENTICAL STRANGERS. Now comes another feature doc about family, no make that families. That’s because it’s part of a sub-genre of documentaries that are also anthologies. Multi-story movies have been a staple for many years, especially in the horror genres with such diverse offerings as DEAD OF KNIGHT to the more recent VHS flicks. The last anthology doc that made a splash might have been FREAKANOMICS, based on the book in 2010. It just so happens that this new entry is also based on an acclaimed book. It profiles families in which the offspring differed greatly from their parents. Or as they saying goes, they “sprang” FAR FROM THE TREE.

Said book is the work of Andrew Solomon who serves as the “host’ or narrator that ties all these stories together (much like the “Crypt Keeper” in the original TALES FROM THE CRYPT horror anthology). Solomon tells of growing up as an “odd duck” in an upper class East Coast family in the late sixties. When he realized he was gay, he “came out” to his parents, who rejected him (their hostility is shocking). Solomon channeled his heartache into scholarly research into other families in which the children were quite different from their folks. We then meet four such families. First is the story of Jason, who gained some fame in the mid seventies when his parents rejected the “experts’ and set out to teach their Down Syndrome child. At that time (just a touch over 40 years ago) the medical community believed such children couldn’t fit into to society and told mothers to give them up. But Jason and his Mom and Dad proved them wrong. We see news footage from that period with Jason even appearing on TV’s “Sesame Street”. Now at age 41, he works in an office delivering mail and lives in a supervised house with two other mentally challenged men. But Mom is concerned that Jason is drifting quickly into a fantasy world (after the death of his adored papa). The next subject is Jack, a young autistic man. In interviews, his parents talk of how the bright happy infant slowly vanished. They vent their frustrations and despair, but they never give up hope. That faith pays off when jack is finally matched with an unorthodox therapist who breaks through to him. The film shifts to shy Loini, a teenage girl dealing with dwarfism. Her encouraging mother takes her to the St. Louis meeting of The Little People of America, where she breaks out of her shell as she meets people “like her”. One of them is the slightly older, more vocal Leah who is trying to start a family with her husband, another “little person” who uses a motorized chair, Joe. But the last profile may be the most compelling. In Texas we meet a middle aged husband and wife as they root through the contents of a storage closet. After a few moments, the wife asks about the location of their eldest son’s school sports team photos. The husband replies in a low soft tone, “The cops took it”. We then learn that their high school-age son Trevor is serving life in prison without parole for the brutal senseless murder of an eight year-old boy. The film makers follow them and their other son and daughter has they try to carry on even as they respond to the occasional collect call from prison. Intercut with the progress of Solomon’s life, the film makers revisit the families, as they deal with their triumphs and challenges.

Director Rachel Dretzin deftly tells these family tales with an unobtrusive hand, letting the principals relate their history without jarring, flashy camera or optical techniques and an off camera narrator to prod their responses. There’s no re-enactments, no title cards (other than first names) or animation, just interviews and candid footage (new and home videos), aside from the occasional archival TV news footage (in the stories of Jason and Trevor). Solomon’s story pops in and out, between segments, and often, sometimes bridging the other tales, but usually compelling on its own, as with the sleazy 42nd Street “doctors’ who could “cure” men of sexual shyness via “assistants’ when the Big Apple developed some mold in the 70’s. Speaking of that decade, Jason’s story becomes an examination of what happens when fame fades. He was a media darling then, but now there’s little “unique” in his challenges. This may be a big reason for his belief that his mythic idol actually exists on the other side of the globe (Norway). After the moving film from 2016, LIFE, ANIMATED, Jack and his parents crisis is a bit familiar, but the raw emotions when his mother vents her frustration is heartbreaking. As with Jason, Loini’s tale of breaking away really shifts gears, smoothly leading into the love story of Leah and Joe. They’re man and wife as true partners, a united, supportive team in their quest to expand their family (aided considerably by Joe’s snarky sense of humor). But this team has a great team behind them as we meet their kind, incredibly nurturing parents, whose joy provides some epic tear-jerking scenes. They’re all upbeat, life-affirming stories about “can do” families. Then there’s the family of Trevor, perhaps the most compelling of the quartet of profiles. There are no upbeat scene beats. The tragedy will never end (much as with the family of the child who Trevor dispatched). At least Trevor still exists, a “living ghost’ in a limbo of collect phone conversations (which sound much like a faraway college student’s weekly “check in”). The only triumph is the continuation of the family (such a horrific incident will split most marriages). Mom and Dad forge on, mainly for their remaining children, as they confess that they’ll never have kids for fear that murderous gene could be passed on. Trevor’s parents  have even erased him. When meeting new people, they only mention the two children. If the truth is found out, questions are raised that can’t be answered (“How did your parenting skills create a killer?”, “What did you do?”). It’s engrossing, powerful film making, worthy of its own solo feature. But it’s just one component that makes FAR FROM THE TREE another of the year’s best feature documentaries.

4 out of 5

FAR FROM THE TREE opens everywhere and screens exclusively in the St. Louis area at Landmark’s Plaza Frontenac Cinemas

 

EATING ANIMALS – Review

Chickens crowded into a confined feeding shed they never leave in their brief lives, in a scene from the documentary EATING ANIMALS. Courtesy of IFC.

EATING ANIMALS has its title slightly wrong. The documentary should have been called “Factory Farming Animals,” because that is its real focus. Factory farming is the production of cheap, fast animal protein, done at a high profit for some big agribusiness corporations and a high price for farm animals, farmers, the environment, and public health. Whether one goes vegan or not after seeing this documentary, one certainly will be put off eating factory-farmed animals after watching this gut-wrenching expose´.

EATING ANIMALS is based on Jonathan Safran Foer’s bestselling book of the same name and it is narrated by Natalie Portman. Portman is vegan and Foer describes himself as sometimes a vegetarian, and both are producers of the documentary directed by Christopher Quinn. The documentary does make a pitch for going meatless at one point but it is not the whole focus of the film. The film does not get into the differences between vegan and vegetarian (vegans don’t eat animal products such as milk and eggs but vegetarians do), but it does offer plenty of food for thought for omnivores and even carnivores. One does not have to be a vegan to be appalled at the treatment of animals this film reveals. Just having a human heart is sufficient, as being eaten eventually is the least of what these creatures suffer. And then there is how this system abuses the people in it, which is also heartbreaking

Anyone who still imagines our modern agriculture system resembles the old model of the independent family farm is in for a big shock watching this documentary. Those family farms do still exist but now those traditional farming methods are called organic. As many will note, this is not the only documentary to spotlight the high cost we (and animals and the environment) are paying for the factory farming system. Several other films, including 2008’s FOOD INC, have made the case about the unsustainable, unsavory mess that CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations), excessive routine use of antibiotic, and extreme selective breeding have made. This documentary sticks to the animal husbandry side of things but other films have focused on the problems with crops also grown under this same big agribusiness system.

This is not a system that sprung up overnight, as this documentary rightly notes, from some sudden conscious decision but one arose step-wise, starting after World War II, in pursuit of increasing yields and hoped-for profits. Unfortunately, the profits increasingly were shifted up the economic chain to big agribusiness corporations, leaving farm families struggling with debt and trapped in an economic loop. The documentary also offers evidence to counter the false claim that factory farming is needed to feed the world. It isn’t really but it does profit a few politically powerful companies greatly.

There is, of course, hope for those who find themselves sickened by this out-of-whack system of food production. More people are choosing organic foods from small farms and locally-grown foods. However, this film mentions those trends only in passing or not at all, and does not acknowledge the public’s shifting attitudes and increasing awareness of where one’s food comes from. Instead, it suggests going meatless as the one solution.

The approach of director/producer Christopher Quinn in EATING ANIMALS is curious at times. He does a good job of focusing on the cruelty and animal suffering under a system so changed from the traditional farm, when chickens ran in the yard, cows ate grass in pastures, and farmers who took pride in breeding and raising healthy animals. Quinn also does well telling the human side of this story. The documentary follows several farmers, people who grew up on traditional farms and have a fondness for both their animals and farm work, but now find themselves caught in a system that dehumanizes and traps them as well as their animals. It also follows the story of a fisherman tracking the source of pollution of the lake he fishes, which he traces to the large collection of hog CAFOs upstream. There is also the heartbreaking tale of a veterinarian, who turned whistle-blower on a government agency that once served farmers and now conducts appalling experiments on animals for large agribusiness corporate interests, a choice that came with a high personal price.

At times, the documentary seems too far-ranging and a bit unfocused. Among the voices heard in the documentary is Dr. Temple Grandin, the famous expert on farm animal behavior and management, who speaks disapprovingly of the abuses seen in the film but then vanishes. There is a long segment on Colonel Sanders of Kentucky Fried Chicken fame and his well-known criticism of what his chicken restaurant after he sold the idea but the connection to the rest of the film seems tenuous.

It always seemed a little surprising that the Human Society and similar animal protective organizations don’t do more to insist on humane treatment of animals in these facilities, or to stop cruel selective breeding that creates animals unable to stand. We do see a little on the Humane Society’s efforts to expose animal abuse in CAFOs and meat processing facilities, which is some of the most heartbreaking footage in the film. And the documentary does offer a kind of explanation of why we don’t see more, by noting the enormous political power of these agribusinesses giants, and the rise of “Ag-Gag” laws that keep their abuses out of public view.

Periodically, EATING ANIMALS shifts gears to campaign for eating vegan or vegetarian, presenting glowing segments touting going meatless, although many meat substitutes made from wheat leave those who are allergic or sensitive to gluten out of luck. Ironically, the end credits note that one of the agribusiness companies spotlighted for CAFOs is now investing in companies that sell meatless products. Switching to something made with mono-cropped soybeans doesn’t seem like much improvement for the farmer trying to raise heritage breed chickens sustainably.

EATING ANIMALS offers going vegan as an option for reducing demand for meat, as a way to move away from factory farming but it is strangely silent on other options to this kind of food production, such as the public’s move towards organic foods, locally-sourced foods, grass-fed beef, small-farm free-range chickens, and farmers markets. The documentary has little to nothing to say on those topics, which is perhaps its major flaw. Any one-note approach seems unlikely to solve the problem.

EATING ANIMALS makes some good points, although not a lot of new ones, on far-ranging topics all connected to the problems created by factory farming of animals. Where it falls short is a tighter focus and in offering options besides going vegan or vegetarian as to solve it.

RATING: 3 1/2 out of 5 stars

THREE IDENTICAL STRANGERS – Review

Okay, this is a tad unusual for the frothy, escapist entertainment of Summer. After just a week, it’s time for another venture into the world of documentaries. Last week the film that opened was another “show-biz personality” doc all about the life of WHITNEY Houston, just a few weeks after the box office smash (for a doc) profile of the late Fred Rogers, WON’T YOU BE MY NEIGHBOR? Like those films, this week’s release has been collecting praise and awards at several festivals around the country. And though it touches on the perils of publicity, it’s roots are more in the investigation type of non-fiction film, so much so that it’s no wonder that one of the producers is CNN Films (whose other great recent theatrical releases include LIFE ITSELF and BLACKFISH). This also focuses on universal themes of family, even though the subjects siblings are really THREE IDENTICAL STRANGERS.

The film begins with a “talking head” style interview of a middle aged man named Robert “Bobby” Shafran. He tells the off camera interviewer of the remarkable adventure that began when he drove himself to Sullivan Community College in New York state way back in 1980. Arriving to begin his freshman year, Bobby was shocked at the very friendly responce from the student body (“Glad you’re back.” “Good to see you again.”). One lovely coed even kisses him . Could this be the start of a loopy “mistaken identity” college sex farce flick? Bobby’s questions are soon answered by another student’s question: “Why are you here Eddy?”. When Bobby convinces him that he is not Eddy (who flunked out last Spring), the two rush to a phone booth (remember those). Bobby describes the wonder of hearing himself on the other line. Turns out they shared the same birthday: July 12, 1961. Bobby and his new pal hop in his beat-up Volvo and race through the night, a two-hour trek, to meet Eddy. “Like looking in a mirror” says modern day Bobby. Both young men were adopted as babies and knew nothing of the other. Of course the local media jumped on this “miracle”. A reporter from Long Island’s Newsday is the first to relay the remarkable tale. The paper makes its way to another New York town where David Kellman is stunned to see photos of two guys that look just like him. The three meet and become inseperable. This story proves impossible for the media to resist, as they were desperate for “feel good” stories at the time of the seemingly unending Iranian hostage crisis (among other dismal events). The handsome lads become the darlings of the country, as they are interviewed by everyone from Jane Pauley to Tom Brokaw and even Phil Donahue. The three become fixtures of the tacky and tawdry disco scene of the “Big Apple” and even score a cameo in a flick with a future superstar. They eventually open their own restaurant, called “Triplets”, of course, and lived very happily ever after.

Umm, not actually. That’s just the story’s first act. After the reunion, the very upset parents went to confront the board of the Louise Wise agency, a service that facilitates adoptions. The parents are told that the boys were separated because of the difficulty in finding parents that could adopt all three. One father angrily insists that had he known, he certainly would have taken in the boys. the parents are sent back outside, but one heads in to grab his umbrella and see the board members splitting a bottle of “bubbly”, as if they dodged a “bullet”. That’s the first of many mysteries. During their early years, why were the families visited by agency reps who filmed interviews with the lads along with tests (square pegs, Rorschach, etc.)? Was everything carefully planned? How were the families selected? Why was the information withheld? Finally we, and the principals, learn that the glorious reunion somehow happened despite the concentrated efforts of a lauded academic’s research study, the results of which seem to be locked away. Eventually the results of this “social experiment” lead to tragedy and heartbreak.

Director Tim Waddle has put together a thriller just as compelling as anything conceived by most Hollywood screenwriters. He expertly pulls the “rug” right out from under us, with the bouncy, high-spirited tone of the first moments illustrated by a manic collage of TV spots and posed “wacky” news pix, all highlighting the infectious smiles and “Brady Bunch” style perms of the happy new brothers. To heighten the drama, Waddle includes recreations of the stories told by the subjects almost in a point-of-view (POV) style, with the camera just behind or over the shoulder of the fellows, with pop tunes on the soundtrack to set the happy mood (“Walkin’ on Sunshine”). That mood changes abruptly as the search for the truth begins. The parents/agency meeting is set on a dark, stormy night. The triplets begin to look distracted and dour in many of their interviews. The somber score by Paul Saunderson strengthens the tonal shift. Waddle tracks down two of the “research aides” that worked with the youngsters, and like actors explaining how they play villains, they thought there was nothing harmful done to the children ( we hear of how one boy pounded the side of his crib because of separation anxiety). Then there’s the frustration of the brothers as nearly every door leading to the truth is slammed in their faces. Luckily, part of the veil is lifted for them, but it doesn’t make up for the lost eighteen years apart from each other. This is capped by some remarkable footage during the end credits that is simply haunting. THREE IDENTICAL STRANGERS is an incredibly powerful tale of the unbreakable bonds of brotherhood. It’ll be tough for the year-end dramas to match this.

4.5 Out of 5

THREE IDENTICAL STRANGERS opens everywhere and screens exclusively in the St. Louis area at Landmark’s Plaza Frontenac Cinemas and the Tivoli Theatre

WHITNEY – Review

In a Summer of superheroes and rampaging dinosaurs, a documentary has somehow broken through the noise. The Fall and Winter is the usual release time for serious, somber fare like “docs”, but this quiet film, about a man known for being quiet, has gotten critical raves and has been embraced by film goers (not Marvel box office, but…). I’m talking about the film about Fred Rogers, WON’T YOU BE MY NEIGHBOR?. It’s part of a “sub-genre” of feature docs, one we’ll call the “show biz personality” film profile. There have been several entries in that category exploring the lives of musical performers. And when a career is cut short by tragedy, it gives the film makers a “dramatic hook” to reel in audiences. That was the case three years ago with the compelling feature documentary about jazz/soul songstress Amy Winehouse titled simply AMY. Now comes a look at a life perhaps even more tragic, but also a career rise more meteoric than most, shattering records while gathering records (of gold and platinum). And her tale may just smash some box office doc records, too. This new film tells the story of WHITNEY, the still adored Ms. Houston.

Film maker Kevin Macdonald is quick to establish the “go go”, totally tubular and tacky 1980’s with lots of quick clip montages snipped from cable news, TV commercials, and music videos. Bursting through the MTV clutter is the stunning Whitney, a dazzling doll straight off the shelf of Toys ‘R’ Us (ah,nostalgia), with an infectious smile and the clear, smooth voice of an angel. After the florescent pink barrage, Macdonald then gets down to his investigation. He takes us on a tour of her hometown of Newark, speaks with some siblings, profiles the patriarch, political hustler John Houston, then it’s on to the formative place that first showcased Whitney’s vocal gifts: New Hope Baptist Church. Inside Macdonald presents the halting entrance of the Houston matriarch, Cissy, battered by life, yet full of quiet dignity and strength.. We’re given a history of her career, as an acclaimed “in demand” back-up singer whose solo efforts stalled. She tells of her efforts to guide Whitney, first by sending her to a private Catholic high school, then training her (and she was a tough coach) to be a professional singer. From the chorus and back-up to solo stints at supper clubs, Whitney honed her performance skills, aided by a short time as a professional print model. Her next mentor is interviewed, Clive Davis, the man who could see “the dream”, plus we get that fateful 1983 appearance on TV’s “The Merv Griffin Show” where Clive presented her to a national audience. The albums and concerts follow, along with controversy (Al Sharpton derided her as “Whitey Houston”), nepotism (“you were guaranteed a job on the tour if your last name was Houston”), and the spectre of drug use (a monster biding its time). The 80’s give way to the 90’s and the iconic Super Bowl rendition of the National Anthem (making it a top 20 hit) and her starring role in the motion picture THE BODYGUARD (Kevin Costner still sings her praises). Soon after begins the professional and personal relationship with R ‘n’ B “bad boy” Bobby Brown whom she marries and births a daughter, Bobby Christina. But the sunny days soon turn dark (shown with lots of outtakes from their “reality” TV shows) as the drug addiction demon finally begins to devour”America’s pop sweetheart”.

No ground braking new techniques are introduced in this rags to riches to ruin story. Macdonald goes to the 80’s kitsch well once too often with repeated montages to break up the “talking head” interviews. Still, some are most revealing. One family member disputes the notion that Whitney went to Catholic high school to escape the constant taunts and threats from public school classmates (“Her childhood was idyllic”), then thirty minutes later blames bullying at school for her later reckless behavior. The most astounding moment may be Macdonald’s questioning of Bobby Brown (painted as a terrible influence by many interviewees). When the subject of drugs is brought up, Brown brushes it away, stating that drugs were not an important part of her life (“Why you wanna’ ask about that?”). A good portion of time is devoted to Whitney’s relationship with former school buddy Robyn Crawford (was she a lover, manager, or both) who is featured in lots of behind the scenes archival footage and is disparaged by the Houston family, but we never really hear her side (guessing she may have declined interview requests). It would have made more sense to limit that subject, since it seems too one-sided (another of several villains). Also, Whitney’s film work is limited to her debut with Costner and her final supporting role in the remake of SPARKLE. WAITING TO EXHALE, THE PREACHER’S WIFE and the TV movie of “Cinderella” (with Whitney as the Fairy Godmother) are never mentioned. Much is made of the accusation of the childhood sexual abuse of Whitney at the hands of a relative (who is now deceased) siting it as a cause of adult problems. That accused abuser is named, but later on during a discussion of the heart-breaking lawsuit filed against Whitney by her later father John, other names of individuals are “bleeped”. These inconsistencies don’t detract from the power of those personal home videos. We see the sweet and soft pop songbird slowly morph into a bitter and hard-edged diva, chain-smoking as she disses other performers (no bleeping as she claims one star is “off key” on her hit single), and even belches when hearing gossip of Bobby’s infidelities. And, as done in the AMY doc, we see how she becomes a pop culture punchline after the disastrous Diane Sawyer “tell all” interview with clips from the “American Dad” TV cartoon, “MadTV” and “Saturday Night Live” with Maya Rudolph screaming “Bobbeee! Bobby Brown!” as though calling in a child for a spanking. Also, as in the other doc, we see painful cell phone video of a more recent humiliating European concert (mangling lyrics while unable to come close to the notes). In a perfect world she would be celebrated with the Kennedy Center Honors and bestowed Congressional and Presidential medals, much as was done with Lena Horne, Aretha Franklin, Tina Turner, and so many others. Instead she’s now remembered by this flawed, but extremely compelling film that will still leave many wondering why, WHITNEY ?

3.5 Out of 5

MOUNTAIN – Review

Rob Jarvis and client at day break in a horizontal climb over a snowy peak, in MOUNTAIN. Photo courtesy of Greenwich Entertainment.

Director Jennifer Peedom’s documentary is a big screen film that must be seen in a theater, preferable on a really big screen, to be truly appreciated. Part nature film and part history and adventure, it focuses on man’s relationship with the Earth’s tallest peaks. It is a symphony of music and sweeping aerial views of majestic mountain scenery.

BAFTA-nominated director Jennifer Peedom collaborates with the Australian Chamber Orchestra and a series of cinematographers to capture the majesty of mountains. Narration by Willem Dafoe draws on the writings of Robert MacFarlane.

MOUNTAIN starts in a different way from most films about mountains and their majesty. Instead of opening with mountains, we see black and white images of an orchestra tuning up and actor Willem Dafoe preparing to deliver his narration as the opening credits roll. Then there is a brief quote, “Those who dance are considered mad by those who cannot hear the music,” and the mountains make their entrance. Perhaps that opening quote describes those who risk all just to climb the planet’s highest peaks.

Those peaks, and mankind’s relationship with them, are the subject of Jennifer Peedom’s visually-soaring documentary MOUNTAIN. Just as the musicians start to play, we cut to views of those mountains, in the kind of aerial shots that have to bring a gasp to any viewer.

That breathtaking aerial photography is primarily by Anson Fogel but the film also includes archival footage and shots from other films about mountains and mountaineering, as well as Go-Pro footage from climbers, skiers, and extreme sport athletes. Among the archival footage is one of very early 20th century tourists, hiking up mountains perhaps in Yosemite.

At least we might guess it is Yosemite but we don’t know because the film does not tell us. MOUNTAIN is more a meditation on mountains and their place in human imagination than a fact-filled exploration of mountaineering. Willem Dafoe reads contemplative prose by Robert MacFarlane, which is more personal thoughts on mountains and people’s attitudes towards them, rather than a detailed history. While Dafoe narrates in a soothing tone, the Australian Chamber Orchestra plays a mostly classical score that includes Vivaldi, Beethoven and Grieg, as well as compositions by Richard Tognetti.

That best sums up the experience of watching MOUNTAIN, soaring, dizzying photography of mountains, sometimes with people scaling them, while Dafoe recites thoughtful prose and the orchestra plays stirring music.

We get shots of unnamed mountains with people free climbing, others of Buddhists monks and monasteries in Himalayas. The narration discusses how mountains have gone from being regarded throughout most of human history as obstacles, dangers to be avoided, or places of “gods and monsters” In more recent centuries, mountains have become symbols of wildness and natural beauty, as source of adventure and exploration. The film focuses on how the conquest of Everest was a turning point in the popular public view of mountains, As the camera skims over jagged, snowy peaks, Dafoe discusses how mountains went from places of danger to be avoided or places of the sacred, to playgrounds to enjoy vanishing wildness or places to indulge an impulse towards risk.

The gorgeous visuals takes us to mountains across the globe, from the Andes to the Alps, the Rockies to the Himalayas. Yet no mountain ranges are directly named and the only famous peak mentioned is Everest. Likewise, the human climbers, skiers and extreme mountain sports athletes are anonymous, although they are listed in the credits. Instead, it is all about the mountains themselves, and their stern grandeur.

MOUNTAINS is the kind of film best seen on the biggest possible screen, an experience that is both exhilarating and meditative, like the mountains it celebrates. The documentary opens Friday, June 15, at the Tivoli Theater.

RATING: 3 1/2 out of 5 stars