This movie came out a few years ago, but I never got around to seeing it until recently. And honestly I only watched it because I was bored and it was free to watch on my Netflix. However, after watching it I ranted for a week straight to anyone who would listen to me vent about how "absolutely terrible" Walmart is. Later I felt silly about how worked up it made me, but that only proves how effective the documentary really is.
The film was broken down into multiple segments, each about another way in which Walmart is ruining the world. And really, with each section you do get more and more appalled with the company. The film has tons of talking head interviews, which after a while would usually get boring, but each person has something new and shocking to tell you, so really, you look forward to them because you end up craving these people's horror stories. Each section suprised me more, and I couldn't believe how much content they had for the film. It started out showing how Walmart causes small town businesses and mom and pop stores to shut down because they can't compete. Some of the other sections talked about how the ways in which they discriminate, force people to work unpaid overtime, don't pay wages that can afford for their own Walmart insurance plan, have terrible factories abroad that have poor conditions and no wages, how selfish and greedy the Walden family is, how they bully workers so they can't unionize, and even an amazing segment soley on the crime that occurs in Walmart parking lots. This documentary is extremely effective in its intentions, and honestly made my jaw drop a little more with each segment. No one seemed to share in my disbelief though, as everyone saw it four years ago when it came out..
From a filmmaker's/editor's standpoint, I think at some points it came across a little 'homemade'. There is a lot of text that comes sporatically, in bright colors with cheesy canned sound and effects. The material being showed was shocking and interesting, and adding was only distracting and hurt the film's credibility. I also got annoyed at the montage at the end of all the cities that have protested and managed to keep out Walmarts. They show pictures and have on-screen text with the city names, but after a little bit they just repeat. It cycles through multiple times, and when you start to notice they're the same cities over and over it looks like they're exaggerating how much has actually been done.
It's on YouTube broken into pieces, I highly suggest checking some of it out if you haven 't already seen it.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
How We Learn
A common complaint that students have in classes is that they didn't get to do anything. Some classes you leave and there's nothing to look back on. Sometimes there's nothing to go back and remember the class by. This semester I've learned how valuable it is to create anything at all. Just do anything at all that demands something of yourself. Everything from the in-camera edits to the final short doc it was challenging and rewarding to have to constantly show progress.
This class taught me that the more you work with film the more you realize your own weaknesses. When you work with the amount of media we did this semester you get a healthy dose of what you're doing wrong. And then the next project always gives you a new opportunity to improve upon that. It allows you to look at what you're used to doing and making improvements upon that.
Now I never want to a finished product without at least six of my peers looking over my shoulder as I work on it. A few years ago I might have told you that I hated getting edited within tyring to complete the project. Now I've learned that continuous editing from people can only expand your perspective and make your final product all that much stronger. Its better to get the bad opinions now, before there's nothing you can do about it.
Finally, I'm just thrilled to have worked together with someone else on a short doc that turned out very well. Collaboration can be a tough concept, but this project was one that benefited greatly from having two sets of eye balls on it the whole time. It can be so helpful to have that extra help especially when the stress of the project becomes too much to handle.
This class taught me that the more you work with film the more you realize your own weaknesses. When you work with the amount of media we did this semester you get a healthy dose of what you're doing wrong. And then the next project always gives you a new opportunity to improve upon that. It allows you to look at what you're used to doing and making improvements upon that.
Now I never want to a finished product without at least six of my peers looking over my shoulder as I work on it. A few years ago I might have told you that I hated getting edited within tyring to complete the project. Now I've learned that continuous editing from people can only expand your perspective and make your final product all that much stronger. Its better to get the bad opinions now, before there's nothing you can do about it.
Finally, I'm just thrilled to have worked together with someone else on a short doc that turned out very well. Collaboration can be a tough concept, but this project was one that benefited greatly from having two sets of eye balls on it the whole time. It can be so helpful to have that extra help especially when the stress of the project becomes too much to handle.
Monday, May 11, 2009
फोटोग्राफी
Born Into Brothels was an amazing documentary about a group of children whose mothers are prostitutes in the red light district of Calcutta. The director, Zana Briski, traveled to Calcutta to photograph the women of the red light district, but became more interested in the children of these women. She decides to teach a photography class to the children in an effort to give them a hobby and talent in hopes of getting them out of the brothel. Briski also works to get the children into boarding schools.
The film was completely endearing in how it showed the chilren both together and individually, so the viewer could feel connected to their personalities and situation. After finishing the documentary I was really pumped about it and absolutely loved it. Though aside from the amazing story and development of these children, after reading some responses to the film a few things seemed problematic about the film. Many found it too one-sided, as the children's families are made out to be completely absent, completely unloving, and just generally terrible with no sign of hope or good. I completely respect and admire Briski for doing all she has for the children, and their situation is definitely dire in many ways. I understand that the film does have to have this focus to bring attention to the situation of these children, and her presence is necessary to connect her target audience with the material and efforts. However, the backlash from the children's culture and country makes you think about Briski's point of view and presentation of her subjects. A review in India's national magazine Frontline featured a story that said, "If Born Into Brothels were remade as an adventure-thriller in the tradition of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, its posters might read: "New York film-maker Zana Briski sallies forth among the natives to save souls." I think this is representative of a major problem in documentary filmmaking, especially abroad. So often we want to tell and hear the stories of those like these children. However, the backlash from the culture or lives we film shows that often they consequently feel exploited or misrepresented.
Briski received criticism from people saying that many of the children in her class did not make it out of the brothel because of her efforts. Even in the documentary it speaks briefly of those who left the schools Briski got them into. But in no way did Briski fail. Should she be criticized for not making perfect the lives of all of those children? Or does she do what she can and tell her story anyway? Taking on a documentary is always risky, because you don't know how it's going to turn out. If Briski knew that many her efforts wouldn't have lasting effects, I highly doubt she would've made the decision to just not do it. Her efforts and documentation were very inspiring, and this film is a great example of a documentarian completely immersing herself in the lives of her subjects.
The film was completely endearing in how it showed the chilren both together and individually, so the viewer could feel connected to their personalities and situation. After finishing the documentary I was really pumped about it and absolutely loved it. Though aside from the amazing story and development of these children, after reading some responses to the film a few things seemed problematic about the film. Many found it too one-sided, as the children's families are made out to be completely absent, completely unloving, and just generally terrible with no sign of hope or good. I completely respect and admire Briski for doing all she has for the children, and their situation is definitely dire in many ways. I understand that the film does have to have this focus to bring attention to the situation of these children, and her presence is necessary to connect her target audience with the material and efforts. However, the backlash from the children's culture and country makes you think about Briski's point of view and presentation of her subjects. A review in India's national magazine Frontline featured a story that said, "If Born Into Brothels were remade as an adventure-thriller in the tradition of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, its posters might read: "New York film-maker Zana Briski sallies forth among the natives to save souls." I think this is representative of a major problem in documentary filmmaking, especially abroad. So often we want to tell and hear the stories of those like these children. However, the backlash from the culture or lives we film shows that often they consequently feel exploited or misrepresented.
Briski received criticism from people saying that many of the children in her class did not make it out of the brothel because of her efforts. Even in the documentary it speaks briefly of those who left the schools Briski got them into. But in no way did Briski fail. Should she be criticized for not making perfect the lives of all of those children? Or does she do what she can and tell her story anyway? Taking on a documentary is always risky, because you don't know how it's going to turn out. If Briski knew that many her efforts wouldn't have lasting effects, I highly doubt she would've made the decision to just not do it. Her efforts and documentation were very inspiring, and this film is a great example of a documentarian completely immersing herself in the lives of her subjects.
The other Michael Scott
The most inspiring speaker that we had this semester, for me, was Michel Scott. There were so many aspects to the making of Over The Hills And Far Away he shared that will stick with me for the rest of my filmmaking career. I was very excited to hear that Scott was coming in to talk about this film, because I had seen pieces of it last year when his editor came into my class to talk about her work on the film, so I already knew the story and had seen a lot of footage, but it was awesome to see how it had all come together.
I loved hearing that before this film Scott was in Hollywood doing miscellaneous things (for example, being a PA on The Texas Chainsaw Massacre... the sequel) then quit because he knew that's not where he wanted to be. I am definitely not the Hollywood feature film type, so it was reassuring to hear and know that I don't have to settle for work that I don't want to be doing. Granted, yes, every now and then I'm bound to need money and shouldn't be so picky. But it just makes you realize, especially in our industry, why do something you're not passionate about? Why waste your time helping others make films you don't feel invested in and wouldn't go see yourself?
I also liked hearing how Scott got started on the film. The story literally fell into his lap because he attended an event about something that genuinely interested him and he was passionate about. If we as documentarians are consistent about staying involved and cultured, we are most definitely going to find stories worthy of film.
Over The Hills is by all means a journey film, both for the family and the filmmakers. It blew my mind to hear Scott talk about taking the trip with the family, riding the horses, camping, and traveling through Mongolia. That is definitely both a dream job and a terror - traveling the world to shoot a film, but also having to ride a horse for ages while trying to hold a camera. Crazy. Here's a short bit of b-roll that is on the movie's website. My favorite part is seeing the sound guy on a horse with a boom.
http://overthehillsmovie.com/vid/OTH_Broll-3_letterboxed.mov
I left class thinking "I want to be him." That's pretty much the best a guest visit can go, right?
I loved hearing that before this film Scott was in Hollywood doing miscellaneous things (for example, being a PA on The Texas Chainsaw Massacre... the sequel) then quit because he knew that's not where he wanted to be. I am definitely not the Hollywood feature film type, so it was reassuring to hear and know that I don't have to settle for work that I don't want to be doing. Granted, yes, every now and then I'm bound to need money and shouldn't be so picky. But it just makes you realize, especially in our industry, why do something you're not passionate about? Why waste your time helping others make films you don't feel invested in and wouldn't go see yourself?
I also liked hearing how Scott got started on the film. The story literally fell into his lap because he attended an event about something that genuinely interested him and he was passionate about. If we as documentarians are consistent about staying involved and cultured, we are most definitely going to find stories worthy of film.
Over The Hills is by all means a journey film, both for the family and the filmmakers. It blew my mind to hear Scott talk about taking the trip with the family, riding the horses, camping, and traveling through Mongolia. That is definitely both a dream job and a terror - traveling the world to shoot a film, but also having to ride a horse for ages while trying to hold a camera. Crazy. Here's a short bit of b-roll that is on the movie's website. My favorite part is seeing the sound guy on a horse with a boom.
http://overthehillsmovie.com/vid/OTH_Broll-3_letterboxed.mov
I left class thinking "I want to be him." That's pretty much the best a guest visit can go, right?
The Examined Life
Seeing The Examined Life was my first outside event. Months ago. However, all my thoughts about it are still fresh in my mind because it was a documentary unlike any I had seen before. The premise of the film is based of famous quote by Socrates, "The unexamined life is not worth living." Director Astra Taylor breaks the film into 8 parts, interviewing contemporary philosphers and progressive intellectuals. At first I was weary about watching what I assumed would be 8 lengthy talking head interviews with people I hadn't heard of, saying things that would go right over my head. I even took my roommate with me, who loves philosophy, so he could explain it to me afterwards if needed. However, Taylor did a lot of great things that really made this movie work.
Each philosopher had a ten minute segment in the film. They really were just straight interviews, however she had them always moving and in an environment that related to what they were speaking about. The philosphers were shown strolling through a park, rummaging through trash, walking down busy NY streets, riding in a car, rowing a boat in Central Park, etc. The speakers themselves were dynamic, interesting both to look at and listen to, and Taylor was able to make hearing modern philosophy engaging and understandable. The material being said would most likely be lost on someone if they were given the writings of these philosophers, but seeing the thinkers out and about and providing tangible visuals to relate their thoughts to the viewer and the contemporary world really made the documentary effective. She did a great job of making the philosophers personable and relatable, such as when Michael Hardt grounds his rowboat on a rock, and Cornell West hops out of the car to walk home.
Taylor was at the event and was inspiring in relaying what motivated her to make the film. She knew she was taking a risk by making a feaure documentary about a subject that one, if not already interested in philosophy, may be unlikely to watch or respond to. However, her variety of interviewees and topics make it nearly impossible to walk away without inspiring thought in a viewer's head.
I highly recommend it! http://www.zeitgeistfilms.com/examinedlife/
Each philosopher had a ten minute segment in the film. They really were just straight interviews, however she had them always moving and in an environment that related to what they were speaking about. The philosphers were shown strolling through a park, rummaging through trash, walking down busy NY streets, riding in a car, rowing a boat in Central Park, etc. The speakers themselves were dynamic, interesting both to look at and listen to, and Taylor was able to make hearing modern philosophy engaging and understandable. The material being said would most likely be lost on someone if they were given the writings of these philosophers, but seeing the thinkers out and about and providing tangible visuals to relate their thoughts to the viewer and the contemporary world really made the documentary effective. She did a great job of making the philosophers personable and relatable, such as when Michael Hardt grounds his rowboat on a rock, and Cornell West hops out of the car to walk home.
Taylor was at the event and was inspiring in relaying what motivated her to make the film. She knew she was taking a risk by making a feaure documentary about a subject that one, if not already interested in philosophy, may be unlikely to watch or respond to. However, her variety of interviewees and topics make it nearly impossible to walk away without inspiring thought in a viewer's head.
I highly recommend it! http://www.zeitgeistfilms.com/examinedlife/
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Garbage Dreams at SXSW
Definitely a must-see documentary, director Mai Iskander does and excellent job at capturing a personal and intriguing story that revolves around a bigger issue of waste disposal and recycling in the world today.
Garbage Dreams follows the lives of three boys Osama, Adham and Nabil who are Zaballeen. The Zaballeen are the people of the trash village in Cairo, Egypt. As the largest city in Egypt, Cairo does not have a waste disposal system. Therefore, the people of Cairo have come to rely on the Zaballeen to collect their trash. Living in the world's largest garbage village, the Zaballeen are faced with more hardships when the city government contracts a private company to collect trash.
There doesn't need to be fancy shots in this type of documentary. The wide and high-angle shots from rooftops in the garbage village are enough to capture the great masses of trash. We see children playing in an small empty space next to piles of trash several stories high. We see various window openings of buildings with no windows but only trash. In another shot, an older woman is sitting in the middle of a trash pile, sorting it. These incredible static shots allow the viewer to feel as though they are in this town. As cinematographer, Mai Iskander had a good eye in capturing the inconceivable life of the Zaballen. At times, I felt I was smelling the town. It was hard to watch at times, but the personalities and drive the boys carry are riveting.
There is not much I can say about the filmmaking, because the story took all my attention. So, saying that actually says the filmmaking was wonderful. Isn't that what we're taught in film school? The story should drive the audience emotions and keep their attention, rather than calling attention to the filmmaking process.
Erik Mauck attended the first screening of "Garbage Dreams." He filmed the Q&A in which Adham was present.
SXSW 2009: All Tomorrow's Parties
A good documentary (and really, any good film) always begins the same way: an interesting idea. You could have the most well-shot, produced, and edited 90 minutes of film to ever hit the silver screen...and it wouldn't mean shit if it was about a boring subject. Occasionally films hit big by making the mundane extraordinary ("Last Days", "Slacker", etc), but these are few and far between. Chances are, if you're making a documentary and you've found an interesting person, place, or event that nobody's made a documentary about, you're on the right track.
Unfortunately, the idea is only half the equation, and execution the other half. "All Tomorrows' Parties" began with a great idea: the artist-engineered music festival that shares the feature's name. The brain-child of Belle and Sebastian promoter Barry Hogan, the ATP festival has been following the same creed for about 10 years: no one knows art better than artists. Each year, in East Sussex, a different artist is asked to "curate" the festival (usually this is a musician but not always), meaning they invite their favorite bands to come and play...essentially, they build the lineup, usually performing as the headliners. The festival is also sponsorship-free, and performers stay in the same accommodations as fans (from the looks of the film, a series of apartmet buildings on the festival grounds), creating a summer-camp like atmosphere of indie/underground music.
Sounds fascinating, right? Too bad the creators of "ATP" (movie) couldn't decide what kind of documentary film they had set out to make. The feature begins with a brief rundown of what the festival is all about, how it got started etc (this is done mostly through unidentified voice-over), and then jumps immediately into long stretches of (presumably) fan-shot material of the festival grounds broken up by more professional looking bits of the performances. Large chunks of the fan-style stuff will follow an unidentified person as he/or she wanders the grounds, talks to other unidentified persons, etc. The footage is novel at first, but the complete lack of structure and context wears it thin fairly quickly. Save for the first few opening minutes, the film is narration-less and interview-less. Thankfully, the filmmakers had the foresight to label each snippet of concert footage with titles ID'ing the performers, the year of the festival, and the curator of the lineup, but beyond that the viewer is really given no clue as to what's going on.
"ATP" has moments of charming, verite charm: there are several impromptu jam sessions in the apartments surrounding the event, and an oddly authentic-feeling altercation between comedian David Cross and a heckler after a bombed performance, but "Don't Look Back" it ain't. And it's certainly no "Song Remains the Same" either...somehow the filmmakers set out to make a mash-up of verite and concert film and wound up with neither A or B, but a staggering mess of a slapped-together footage that serves no larger purpose, and at least one audience member wishing he knew just a little bit more about all the images he's looking at. It's a sad testament to how uninformative "ATP" is that I had to look up most of the information about the festival on wikipedia. For shame.
Unfortunately, the idea is only half the equation, and execution the other half. "All Tomorrows' Parties" began with a great idea: the artist-engineered music festival that shares the feature's name. The brain-child of Belle and Sebastian promoter Barry Hogan, the ATP festival has been following the same creed for about 10 years: no one knows art better than artists. Each year, in East Sussex, a different artist is asked to "curate" the festival (usually this is a musician but not always), meaning they invite their favorite bands to come and play...essentially, they build the lineup, usually performing as the headliners. The festival is also sponsorship-free, and performers stay in the same accommodations as fans (from the looks of the film, a series of apartmet buildings on the festival grounds), creating a summer-camp like atmosphere of indie/underground music.
Sounds fascinating, right? Too bad the creators of "ATP" (movie) couldn't decide what kind of documentary film they had set out to make. The feature begins with a brief rundown of what the festival is all about, how it got started etc (this is done mostly through unidentified voice-over), and then jumps immediately into long stretches of (presumably) fan-shot material of the festival grounds broken up by more professional looking bits of the performances. Large chunks of the fan-style stuff will follow an unidentified person as he/or she wanders the grounds, talks to other unidentified persons, etc. The footage is novel at first, but the complete lack of structure and context wears it thin fairly quickly. Save for the first few opening minutes, the film is narration-less and interview-less. Thankfully, the filmmakers had the foresight to label each snippet of concert footage with titles ID'ing the performers, the year of the festival, and the curator of the lineup, but beyond that the viewer is really given no clue as to what's going on.
"ATP" has moments of charming, verite charm: there are several impromptu jam sessions in the apartments surrounding the event, and an oddly authentic-feeling altercation between comedian David Cross and a heckler after a bombed performance, but "Don't Look Back" it ain't. And it's certainly no "Song Remains the Same" either...somehow the filmmakers set out to make a mash-up of verite and concert film and wound up with neither A or B, but a staggering mess of a slapped-together footage that serves no larger purpose, and at least one audience member wishing he knew just a little bit more about all the images he's looking at. It's a sad testament to how uninformative "ATP" is that I had to look up most of the information about the festival on wikipedia. For shame.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)